Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — IRISH SAILORS AND SOLDIERS LAND TRUST BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.

11.5 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of Slate for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
As I said to the House on Second Reading, I commend this Bill. It has been made possible thanks to the agreement of the three Governments of the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and the Government of Northern Ireland. We hope that this will enable the Trust to fulfil its duties more efficiently by getting them over the difficulty that the Rouses which are in Southern Ireland cannot have rents paid for them. I therefore ask the House to pass this Bill, which has the agreement of these three Governments.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: As we made clear on Second Reading, since the purpose of this Bill is to benefit ex-Service men of the 1914–18 war who live in Ireland, we support it. I had hoped—and I still hope—that it would have been possible for the Under-Secretary, perhaps in a Written answer or by letter, to let us have a little more information about the administrative costs of the year to which we referred. It will be recalled that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) mentioned that the costs worked out at £8,600 in one year, which seemed excessive. If the Under-Secretary would at a later stage let us have information about that, I feel that it would be of benefit to us.
The purpose of this Bill is to benefit ex-Service men. Irishmen have always liked soldiering. I remember being told

on my first visit to Ireland that it was a grand country to live in because there were three armies one could join, and every one of them was illegal. Those were the days of the I.R.A., Duffy's Blueshirts, and so on. Although it has not got the same thrill, we now have three perfectly legal forces serving in this country which welcome young men from Ireland. This Bill benefits ex-Service men of one war, and my hon. Friends and I welcome and support it.

Mr. Foster: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply. I will certainly communicate with the Chairman of the Trust and ask him whether he can see his way clear to let hon. Members have more details of the particular expenditure referred to on Second Reading.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I do not think this occasion should go by without some reply to the derogatory references to the people of Southern Ireland. Far from being a belligerent nation, the people of Ireland at the present time have no conscription and are the most pacific people in the world.

Mr. Alan McKibbin: I welcome the Bill. I am particularly interested in the people of Northern Ireland, but I hope that it will clear up the awkward situation which has existed during the last 19 years. I hope that this Bill will benefit the ex-Service men of Southern Ireland also.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — CINEMATOGRAPH BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(SCOPE OF REGULATIONS.)

11.10 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): I beg to move, in page 1, line 22, at the end, to add:
(2) Any statutory instrument containing such regulations as aforesaid shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.


The Amendment provides that any Statutory Instrument containing the regulations shall be laid, and it will, of course, make the regulations subject to the usual negative Resolution procedure. This carries out the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend during the course of the Second Reading, and I think it will commend itself to the Committee.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: There is nothing which I can add to what the Under-Secretary has said, except to say that we on this side of the Committee welcome this addition to the Bill. It was very necessary that something of the kind should be included, and if the Government had not put down this Amendment we most certainly would have done.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Dr. Horace King: I do not propose to detain the Committee for more than a few minutes, but I was tempted to suggest an Amendment to this Clause by the addition of a subsection which would instruct the Minister to carry out a recommendation of the Wheare Committee's Report and set up a national Children and the Cinema Committee. I take the opportunity of raising the matter on this Clause, because I think that it is of extreme importance.
The Wheare Committee recommended that we should set up a committee, not in any restricted sense, but a committee which would be the focus of national interest on children in the cinema, and which would provide the machinery for giving advice on the classification of children's films—a body which ultimately would create and provide films for children and, above all, a body which would be the focus for setting up in different parts of the country local children's cinema committees dealing with this question in a positive way.
I would call the attention of the Minister—and I am reiterating what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said in a previous debate—to the fact that this is a matter not only for the Home Office, but for the

Minister of Education. May I illustrate what I am saying by referring to the Wheare Committee's Report and its description of what has taken place in the town of Stoke-on-Trent? There, a Children's Cinema Council has been set up. Its members are composed of the education committee, teachers and parents, as well as cinematograph exhibitors and club managers. It meets regularly and deals in a positive way with the problems of children attending cinemas in Stoke-on-Trent; and, what is much more exciting, it has set up a committee of children themselves, elected from the schools of the district, and has established cinema clubs for primary and secondary school children.
This whole matter is not one that can be solved by the commercial interests. The recommendation in the Wheare Committee's Report was that having set up this committee, the link with the British Board of Film Censors should be through the chairman, and I hope that at some stage the Home Secretary and his colleague the Minister of Education will use the powers given under this Clause to set up a specific committee, not merely a children's advisory committee to which reference was made on the Second Reading debate, but a statutory committee to inaugurate a very great piece of work for children in this country.
I do not propose to reiterate the points which I made during the Second Reading debate, but there are all kinds of important recommendations from the Wheare Committee. I would mention one which I did not have time to deal with on the Second Reading debate. It seems to me very important that we should not regard a children's cinema show as one perpetually closed to adults. Some day fathers and mothers with their children may very well get together in a sort of family party at the children's cinema shows and, above all, those who are keenly interested in the positive work of providing children's entertainment in the cinema could be with them at these Saturday morning shows. I think that some regulations could be made under this Clause to provide for that.
I do not wish to do anything which will delay the passage of this excellent Bill through Committee, but I felt that I ought to make these observations.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. Joseph Reeves: I should like to support the plea which my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King) has made. I feel that we are dealing with the children's film in a way which is out of proportion to the regulations. The difficulty is that when the 1909 Bill was passed, it was purely a safety Measure. There is no doubt that the celluloid film, being so inflammable, demanded action by the Government to protect the public. As we know, very serious fires had been caused on account of the combustibility of the celluloid film, and the Bill was passed upon that basis.
Now the whole scene has changed. The Home Secretary has already told us that the non-inflammable film is becoming the rule rather than the exception, and, consequently, all the regulations which have developed over the years no longer apply. The safety aspect is ceasing to exist and we are now forced to deal with this question of children's films from the point of view of censorship. It seems to me that the 1909 Act is a very awkward instrument, amend it as one will, to deal with this question of censorship, and to have to include children's films in this piece of legislation strikes me as being almost ridiculous.
I would ask the Home Secretary, when the Bill has gone through, if he and his officials would go into the whole question of segregating this aspect of the children's films from this Bill altogether. I am sure that is the right way to approach this matter. Indeed, in my view, we require a totally new Bill, because to amend the 1909 Act, which was for a totally different purpose, at this juncture, is not expedient and does not meet the situation.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): In view of the way in which this matter has been put forward, I think that the simplest and best way of meeting the points raised by hon. Members would be for me to say that I shall gladly consider them with those in my office who are specially versed in them. If the hon. Gentlemen who have raised them can find time to see me quite informally and give me their views, I shall welcome them. I think that meets the substance of the matter, and I shall be very pleased if in the usual way with which, I think, they

are quite familiar, they will get in touch with me and have a talk about it.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: We very much appreciate what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. Throughout our proceedings we have realised that we have been legislating for two very different things. The question of the child and the cinema is, in the light of the Wheare Report, a very important matter now, and the clear and voluminous Report issued by the Committee should not be allowed to remain on a shelf but should be implemented.
From what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said on Second Reading, I understand that he and the Secretary of State for Scotland intend to put many of the Wheare Report's recommendations and suggestions into regulations. However, I imagine that will not cover the field entirely, and we welcome his statement that he will take an early opportunity to consult my hon. Friends and other interests to see if yet another Measure—it need not be a big one—should later on be passed by the House, the part of this Bill which refers to children being repealed at the same time.

Mr. Tom Brown: In view of the manner in which the Home Secretary has offered to meet my two hon. Friends, I wish to ask him whether, when he is considering new legislation dealing with children's films, he would be prepared to accept recommendations from local education authorities, for they have had under consideration the very serious effects which some films have on the minds of children. From my experience on local education authorities I know that this matter has received their attention, and their experience and consideration may enable them to submit valuable suggestions to the right hon. and learned Gentleman which will aid him in the compilation of the new legislation which he has promised.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I appreciate what has been said by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), and I should like to draw his attention to the fact that my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education is present this morning, which demonstrates our combined interest in these matters. I should be more than glad to have that aspect introduced into our discussions, and we


should then have the advantage of the point of view of the Ministry of Education which is in touch with the local education authorities.

Dr. King: I thank the Home Secretary for the very forthcoming and generous way in which he has received the remarks which have been made this morning. As we listened to the speech with which he opened the Second Reading debate and to the speech of the Joint Under-Secretary of State in winding up the debate we felt that in both Ministers there was an awareness of the problem with which we are concerned and also keen sympathy, and we are very grateful indeed for that.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(PROVISIONS AS TO CONDITIONS IN LICENCES.)

Mr. Patrick Maitland: I beg to move, in page 2, line 14, at the end, to insert:
(2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to Scotland.
Hon. Friends of mine who also have their names to the Amendment have asked me to apologise for the fact that they are unable to be here this morning. We are anxious that subsection (1) should not have effect in Scotland, where an effective system is already operating to keep children from the greater of two evils, namely, undesirable company as being something worse than undesirable film shows. A voluntary system has been working in Scotland for 18 years. It was brought about by collaboration between the cinema exhibitors and the licensing authorities, and no serious argument has come from either the Wheare Report or the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson Stewart) to show that the system is not working well.
It is argued in paragraph 161 of the Wheare Report—it has also been argued by the Joint Under-Secretary—that the system proposed for England and Wales should be extended to Scotland in the name of logic. Someone else said that it was in the name of administrative tidying up. North of the Border we do not take

kindly to being administratively tidied up, particularly when our system is already working satisfactorily. The appeal to logic is the appeal of the planner and perhaps even of the dictator. As our voluntary system is working well and no real objection to it has been raised, we are keen to preserve it.
On Second Reading the Joint Under-Secretary suggested that there was no real reason for refusing to extend to Scotland the system proposed for England, because most of the cinemas in Scotland were controlled by companies controlling the cinemas in England. I am told by people in the industry that only one-fifth of the Scottish cinemas are owned by companies operating south of the Border.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): I did not say "most"; I said "some".

Mr. Maitland: We need not delay unduly over that matter, but it is important to point out that the proportion is only one-fifth. By applying the Clause to Scotland, we shall be imposing what is a doubtful system of English law, even though the daring action of a few licensing authorities has not been challenged. The Joint Under-Secretary listed nine or 10 counties and burghs where the English practice has been adopted, but that is a very small minority and it does not argue very cogently for the forceful application of the system to the whole of Scotland. We are bound to record that there is on the Statute Book an Act of Union which contains specific provisions for the recognition and preservation of distinctive Scottish law. It may be said that we are being pedantic, but a serious principle is involved and we cannot let the occasion pass without reference to it.
The Clause contains the term "unsuitable for children." I am now on rather different ground, for this is not merely a Scottish point but a point in general. That term is by no means clear enough. There are many arguments, points of view and standards by which the suitability of a film can be judged. I do not have the opportunity to attend the cinema more than about once a year and so some of my experiences may be thought to be a little archaic, but, looking back over films which were regarded as suitable for universal exhibition, I think, for instance, of "Ben Hur" many years ago, a film


taken from the Old Testament. It may be said that it was entirely suitable for children, but it was a savage, bloodthirsty portrayal of events which one can only hope did not happen in the gory and expansive manner portrayed.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: "Ben Hur" dealt with something that happened at the time of the Roman gladiators, and that was long after the time of the Old Testament.

11.30 a.m.

Mr. Maitland: I apologise and bow to superior and more exact knowledge. I was confusing the New Testament with the Old Testament, not a happy mistake to make in a Scottish debate when we are all students of the Bible.
These gory and bloodthirsty films are not particularly educative or inspiring for children. The term "unsuitable for children" is by no means clear. Local authorities are bound to judge according to local conditions, standards, tastes and temperaments, and particularly according to the convictions of the neighbourhood, as to what may or may not be suitable for children. Films are passed for universal exhibition which can hardly be said to be suitable for children. That reinforces my argument as to what children should be allowed to see, and the way in which they should be preserved from seeing undesirable films should be left to local authorities and not settled by Statute.
I feel that die criteria which may be implicit here are doubtful. The present system in Scotland is working adequately and the argument of the Wheare Committee is only one of administrative tidying up, which is not an argument for changing the law. Where a system is working well, it behoves us to resist the attempt by the Civil Service to replace that voluntary system by Regulations.
I therefore plead with the Under-Secretary to consider this matter if it is still possible at this late stage of the Session. Above all, I submit that where moral law is effective Statute law is superfluous.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Before the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland answers, perhaps an ordinary Englishman from this side of the House, might—greatly daring and with all apologies—

intervene in what is, after all, a purely Scottish matter. As the hon. Member seems to be fighting a lone battle on this point, and those who had a great deal to say when we dealt with it on Second Reading and who put their names down to this Amendment—principally the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot)—not being here, perhaps someone from this side might say a few words.
If the hon. Member does take this Amendment to a Division, we shall be greatly tempted to vote with him in order to keep him in countenance against his own side; but I think that he has overlooked the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has gone a long way to meet him in a later Amendment. It is not for me to say why he should have done so, because we have not reached the particular Amendment, but there is an Amendment to Clause 10 which gives the Secretary of State for Scotland power to postpone the coming into operation of any Regulations which would, amongst other things, deal with the powers given under this Clause.
In any case, I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Home Secretary has promised us that this matter will presently be looked at as a whole, so far as children are concerned, and I would suggest to him that the right course for him to adopt is to wait and see the outcome of those consultations and any Bill which may result from them.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I hope that the spokesman for the Government is not going to yield to the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) on the basis of his very casual acquaintance with the Scottish cinema. He has told us that he goes to the cinema only once a year. He has seen "Ben Hur," which he thought came from the Old Testament, and it is presumably on this very slender basis that we are asked to agree that Scotland should be allowed to contract out of this Clause and these Regulations.
If the hon. Member wished to come forward as a kind of inverted Scottish Nationalist, I think he might have chosen legislation more appropriate than this, but I should be out of order if I suggested certain legislation on which he


might have staged a more appropriate rebellion or mutiny against his Front Bench—if his speech can be characterised as that.
Even if he does not go to the Scottish cinema, if he occasionally goes to his constituency and wanders about some of the villages and mining towns adjacent to my constituency he will see on the hoardings abundant proof that the children need something more in the way of legal protection than these loose and voluntary arrangements which are made with the cinema proprietors. If he will carry his researches a little further, read the local newspapers and study the list of the films shown there, he will find that they are not entirely theological or quasi-theological.
In these days when every local authority and everybody who is interested in education is rather concerned about the effects of films upon the younger generation, I suggest that this is not an occasion where Scotland should contract out, but that there is every evidence that we should not abandon the necessary Regulations which we think are appropriate for the safeguarding of the children from films of a sensational and violent character.

Mr. Maitland: I do not want to prolong this discussion indefinitely, but I would submit that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has not pointed out why, when the voluntary arrangements have been working very well, they should now be legally tidied up. He has not dealt with that point at all.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: My hon. Friend has put his case with great charm and has not pressed it unduly. I do not think it could be said that he is staging a rebellion, as was suggested by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), but I agree with the hon. Member that this would certainly not be an appropriate battlefield for staging a rebellion because it is really such a relatively small point which is at issue. When we come to Clause 10 I will endeavour to explain to the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) why we propose to make the concession to which he referred. There is a perfectly good reason.
I cannot accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend for a number of reasons which I think will appear to him to be good. The intention of the Amendment seems to be to withhold from Scottish local authorities the power to attach to cinema licences conditions applying the "X" film rule, which excludes children, and also the "A" film rule. I must tell my hon. Friend that his Amendment would not in fact do that. Clause 1 of the Bill and the Amendments to the 1909 Act in the Schedule will empower the licensing authorities in Scotland as elsewhere to attach any condition they choose to a cinema licence, subject to a right of appeal to the Sheriff in Scotland—and all the Amendment would do if it were carried would be to remove the obligation which the Bill places upon the local licensing authorities first to attach the "X" rule for the "X" films, and secondly, to consider attaching the "A" rule for the "A" films. In spite of the Amendment, however, the licensing authority could do either of those things, if it wished. If my hon. Friend wanted to take this right out of the purview of Scottish licensing authorities, he would need a few more Amendments than this one.
I do not think there is any argument that the "X" film rule ought to apply. The Board of Film Censors which is established by the trade itself—not by the Government—has, I think, the confidence of the trade and of the nation. If the Board declares that a film is not suitable for children to see, then the children ought not to be allowed to see it. Scottish exhibitors have accepted that position and have voluntarily agreed that they will observe the "X" rule.
Is it really enough, though, in the interests of the children, to have only that voluntary arrangement as a protection for the children? I do not think it can be. I do not in any way doubt the sincerity of the Scottish cinema industry; but that children should be protected only by a voluntary agreement and arrangement made by the trade is not, in my opinion, good enough. It is essential that there should be something provided by Statute, giving the licensing authority the power to impose that restriction. I do not think that my hon. Friend could stand up on any public platform in his Division and tell his constituents: "I am not in favour


of Scottish local authorities having that power of prohibition."

Mr. Maitland: I would have no hesitation in standing up anywhere for the preservation of a voluntary agreement, if it works, and I would say that in my constituency, even though I found myself bewitched by the charm of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Stewart: If my hon. Friend thinks he can get away with that one, well and good. I can only comment that I could not in my constituency.
As regards the "A" film rule, the deletion of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) would be unfortunate, although it would not seriously damage the Bill. Local licensing authorities would probably consider the application of the rule in the ordinary course of events. But it would not be fair to my hon. Friend if I were to confine myself to the actual wording of his Amendment. Let us try to understand what he is getting at. He says that no case has been made for applying this subsection to Scotland. What is the answer to that?
The case is overwhelming. First of all, the Wheare Committee, which contained four Scotsmen, specifically recommended, after hearing evidence from the Scottish exhibitors and others, that the Scottish local authorities should have the same powers as the English. I observed that my hon. Friend used these words, which I took down. He said—I quote him—
Matters of this kind should be left to local authorities, and not to Statute.
That is precisely what we are seeking to do in the Bill. We are not saying that this shall be laid down from London or even from Edinburgh. We are trying to get the power left to the Scottish local authorities.
Secondly, I must inform the Committee that some Scottish local authorities, as my hon. Friend knows, already exercise these powers under local Acts and under Burgh Police Acts—although it is doubtful whether their use of the Burgh Police Acts is entirely competent. The three Scottish local authority associations welcome the Bill. It is not for Scottish Members of Parliament to ignore that situation. Indeed, the County Councils Association for Scotland have been

pressing for something like this for several years. We cannot close our ears to that appeal.
11.45 a.m.
I do not think that conditions differ materially in this matter between England and Scotland. As I said on the Second Reading, speaking both as a parent and as a Minister, I cannot see that there is any sharp difference between the reaction of children north and south of the Border. Therefore, it is not possible to say that there is a sort of Scottish Nationalist view about this matter. Scottish licensing authorities are required by subsection (1, b) to consider—they are not required to do anything but consider—what conditions, if any, should be attached about the "A" film. I know it is the "A" film that troubles my hon. Friend.
What are the facts? The Wheare Committee showed that the "A" film Regulation in England has had all kinds of unsatisfactory results. I have the report here. The Committee said that the Regulation was not workable. Very well. The Consultative Committee are examining this very problem now. They may conclude that the "A" film classification is not a good one and that a different classification is required. All that we ask in the Bill is that powers should remain in the hands of the local authorities to put down such conditions as they think fit in the case of each particular type of film.
I have offered the Scottish cinema industry the concession that we will not expect them to impose the "A" film Regulation in Scotland until the Committee have reported, because the Committee may well report that there should not be such a condition at all. Why does one do that in Scotland and not in England? The answer is that in England the "A" film rule has been in operation for years. In Scotland it has never been in operation, except in the few cases which I quoted on Second Reading. Because it has never been in operation in Scotland we do not ask that it should now be brought into operation. I cannot understand why the Scottish cinema industry should have the least anxiety on this score.
The Consultative Committee are now sitting regularly. The children's subcommittee are most actively engaged in this operation. They have a big job to do and they may take a little time before


they make their recommendations. I am sure that Scottish local authorities would not wish to act until they have seen the recommendations of the Committee and I am equally sure that if we passed the Amendment and took away from Scottish local authorities the power at that future date to apply certain restrictions the Scottish local authorities would be very angry with us, and in my opinion quite properly so.
For all these reasons I appeal to my hon. Friend not to press the Amendment. It would be a very great pity if our country, our local authorities and our children were not to receive as much protection by law as is given in England. They deserve the protection of the House of Commons.

Mr. Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for his most lucid and persuasive explanation, and in particular for drawing our attention to the approaches made to him by local government bodies. This was the most persuasive argument in his most impressive armoury. I would point out that our Amendments were put on the Order Paper before we knew of the Amendment which stands in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland. We should like to have a separate Scottish Bill, and thoroughly discuss it in the Scottish Standing Committee, but that is not possible. In view of the explanation which has been given, and of the arguments, and above all in view of the Amendment standing in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(EXEMPTIONS FOR NONCOMMERCIAL EXHIBITIONS.)

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 2, line 39, to leave out
other than children's cinema club exhibitions.
If the Committee will allow me, Sir Charles, I should like to speak not only on this but on two subsequent Amendments, which fall into the same category. They are all drafting Amendments and, when read together, I hope they will clarify but not alter the sense of the

Clause. Perhaps hon. Members will refer to the two Amendments to page 3, on page 2250 of the Order Paper, as follow: to leave out lines 24 and 25, and insert:
(2) For the purposes of this section an exhibition shall not be treated as an exempted exhibition if.
In line 28, to leave out "except that it does not include," and insert:
so however that this subsection shall not apply to.
As the Clause is drafted there is a possible ambiguity in the meaning of the term "exempted exhibition" which might or might not be held to be qualified by the words "other than children's cinema club exhibitions," and this might lead to difficulty in the interpretation of subsection (3). The Amendments first avoid this ambiguity and, secondly, make the Clause slightly shorter and less complicated than the original. For those reasons, I hope that the Committee will accept them.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, at the end, to insert:
and regulations made by the Secretary of State under that Act, being regulations made by virtue of paragraph (a) of the said section two, shall not apply in relation to an exempted exhibition unless given in premises in respect of which a licence under the Act of 1909 is in force.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: May I interrupt for a moment, Sir Charles? We have an Amendment on the Order Paper to line 8, to leave out "paragraph (b) of." Do I understand that you do not intend to call it?

The Chairman: I thought it was a little wider than the one which has just been moved, but so near that they could be discussed together if that will suit the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, I purposely called the one in the name of the Home Secretary.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Thank you, Sir Charles.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I want to call the attention of the Committee to the words
shall not apply in relation to an exempted exhibition unless given in premises in respect of which a licence under the Act of 1909 is in force.


The Committee will remember that on the Second Reading I announced my intention of taking out of the Bill the power of the Secretary of State to apply safety regulations to exempted exhibitions given elsewhere than in premises licensed as cinemas.
The reason for continuing to apply the safety regulations when an exempted exhibition is given in a licensed cinema is that the risks involved are greater because the audience is likely to be larger. Therefore, we believe it is desirable that the safety precautions required when commercial exhibitions are given in licensed cinemas such as I mentioned—the continuance of safety lighting and special precautions against fire, particularly when inflammable film is used—should continue to operate even when a non-commercial exhibition is given. It is for this reason that Clause 5 (1, d) already provides that the safety conditions contained in the cinema licence may be applicable when an exempted exhibition is given in a licensed cinema.
I want to point out one or two matters which I hope will help the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), because I know his concern and I would like to meet it. There is no question of a separate licence having to be attained before an exempted exhibition can be given in a licensed cinema. The Bill is drafted so that the only regulations or conditions of the licence which can apply when an exempted exhibition is given are those relating to safety.
The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that Clause 5 (1, c) provides that health and welfare regulations made by the Secretary of State are not applicable to an exempted exhibition wherever it is given. Clause 5 (1, d) provides that no condition or restriction contained in the licence shall apply except insofar as it relates to safety. There is, therefore, no need for an organisation which gives an exempted film show in a licensed cinema to go to the appropriate body for a licence to show the film. All that is necessary is that they should ensure that the safety precautions which have been laid down for the premises, either in the licence or whatever regulations the Secretary of State may make, are complied with.
It might be convenient if I said a word more directed to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman than my own, because I am trying to give the picture of these facts. The effect of the Amendment is that the regulations made by virtue of paragraph (a) of Clause (2) shall not apply in relation to an exempted exhibition unless given in premises in respect of which there is a licence, that is really, a cinema. The alternative to that is not to apply them at all, and the regulations would not be applicable to an exempted exhibition wherever the exhibition is given and whatever the means used for showing the pictures.
I have indicated why I think it is desirable that the safety regulations should apply to an exempted exhibition given in a licensed cinema. Everyone would agree it is essential that the regulations should apply if inflammable film is used. Although it is true that noncommercial organisations do not usually use inflammable film, I would remind the Committee that it is sometimes done by film societies showing old films on the 35 mm. stock. Therefore, I am not inventing a hypothesis in order to remove a difficulty, but dealing with a point which might arise. If they do it now, they have to comply with all the regulations of the 1909 Act, including censorship. I am putting them in the more favourable position of limiting it to safety.
The pith and substance of the point is that I am removing the need for an exempted exhibition given in a licensed cinema to comply with anything except safety, and I hope that the Committee will allow that to go forward and that the right hon. Gentleman will believe that I have considered carefully the points he has made.

Dr. Barnett Stross: We have listened with great attention to what the Home Secretary has told us, and I am satisfied that he has carried out sincerely the promise he made to us last Tuesday night. If I am correct, it means that an Amendment in the names of my hon. Friends and myself, to which we shall come presently, automatically falls because those points are covered. I have, however, some reservations to make, and I should like to ask some questions.
12 noon.
My first request is that it seems to be advisable that the Home Secretary should make the decision quite clear to all the licensing authorities. When exempted exhibitions are being given in licensed premises, they should be given to understand clearly the position as now outlined by the Home Secretary. They should then make the position clear to all holders of licences. This would be the way to prevent confusion arising.
I hope I may be forgiven for saying that the Bill, which at first seemed simple, is indeed a tricky matter, and we shall have to be most careful otherwise injustice may be done to some section of the community. As we are proving this morning, and as was shown the other night, that is the very thing that we wish to avoid.
I now come to a more serious reservation and am wondering whether in making it I should be in order in referring to line 16, which comes at the very end of the words we are discussing. We are contemplating changing the words so that paragraph (d) is to have words added to it referring to the admission of children.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): That, I understand, is the subject of a later Amendment.

Dr. Stross: I shall not refer to it specifically now, but I should like the Home Secretary to give an assurance that in the concession he has made to meet the points that we have put before him he does not intend that there shall be any specific reservation about the admittance of children into these organisations—that is to say, new any reservation that we did not discuss on Tuesday and which has not appeared until, possibly, this morning upon the Order Paper.
If we were to find that the concession which has been made, which gave freedom of entry to all exempted exhibitions, was, as it were, suddenly taken away from us so that censorship now is to be applied wherever a child may go, even if it be to an organisation such as an ordinary film society which shows very often on licensed premises on a Sunday, we would find ourselves nearly as badly off as before any concession was made. I

know that the point is difficult, but I can leave it at this for the moment because we shall have another opportunity presently of speaking more fully on it.
We welcome every word that we have heard on the point so far, and we believe that there is no need for the somewhat more radical Amendment which appears in the names of my hon. Friends and myself.

Sir Richard Acland: In welcoming the Amendment, I should like to describe a particular form of activity in relation to which the Amendment is so very welcome. I am thinking particularly of meetings, supported by cinema showings, organised by missionary societies, although the same set of considerations would apply to a number of other educational or religious instructional bodies.
I have in mind not the organisation of a single meeting, but the organisation of a tour of meetings. What frequently happens is that a society of this kind, with a speaker, who may be a missionary on home leave, attempts to arrange a tour of meetings through villages and towns, in, say, north-west Kent, East Anglia, or anywhere else.
It is rather difficult to fix up a tour of meetings economically on successive days, so that the speaker, with his apparatus, does not have to chase across country and have blank days and then two evening showings on the same day. But with contacts with local secretaries of the society, with vicars, rural deans, and so on, the job can be done if it is simply a question of saying. "Can our speaker come to you on Thursday and can you arrange the hall and the advertising and the giving of notices, and for somebody to be there to serve tea afterwards, and all the rest?"
When we first looked at the Bill it seemed to be rather alarming, because on top of all those other difficulties there appeared to be superimposed the problem of getting a licence or of making sure that in relation to a village hall all the necessary safety precautions would be observed.
The Amendment is very satisfactory as it stands—provided that we are very cautious about another Amendment later—precisely because it removes from such


an organisation all the headaches which appear to be involved in the subsection as it was originally drafted; simply because if in a tour of meetings some of the showings take place in a hall which is licensed, as far as structure is concerned—alternative lighting systems, doors opening outwards, unobstructed gangways and all the rest—these physical precautions will have been satisfied already. Therefore, the missionary society will not have to worry their heads about it.
There may be some provisions about the number of staff to be in attendance, but those will be provisions which will be very easily satisfiable by the local people; and I understand that there will be no need whatever for such a missionary society or other similar body to make any separate application to anyone in relation to a showing in such a hall, whereas if in the course of the tour they were to include a church, a parish hall, a village hall or whatever it may be, where there was not a licence in force, because of the Amendment the safety precautions would not apply.
That is quite reasonable, because for many decades such societies have been giving showings of this kind in these unlicensed halls without there having been on record a single fire or a single panic in any way attributable to the use of 16 mm. films. Therefore, provided that the suggestion about ensuring that the licensing authorities and the licence holders fully understand the position is carried out, the Amendment as it stands seems to be most satisfactory, and I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for putting it down.

Mr. Reeves: As one who is interested in the exempted societies, I ought sincerely to thank the Home Secretary for making this significant concession in connection with the certificate on films. Very often a film society or one of the exempted societies have films that they wish to show and which normally would meet the requirements of the British Board of Film Censors, but they do not necessarily have a certificate to cover the film.
Under the new arrangements, they will be able to show in an ordinary cinema or in licensed premises without the certificate. This shows that the censorship is not being imposed for censorship

purposes. It is a very significant concession and one which conforms to the general principles outlined by the Home Secretary when he introduced the Bill, when he said that it was not the intention nor the desire of the Government to see a State censorship. This is a small addition to our liberties, and we ought to thank the Home Secretary accordingly.

Mr. James Hudson: From my point of view, I am well content to leave the general question of the supervision of what we are discussing in the capable hands of my hon. Friends who have just addressed the Committee. I have been watching the position, of course, from the viewpoint of the temperance societies and of the churches, who are also developing considerable activity through film propaganda.
I entirely agree about all the insistance on regulations concerning safety and the necessity for those bodies conforming in the way that other bodies must conform. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves) has said. We are beholden to the Home Secretary for a very favourable consideration.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am most grateful for all that hon. Members have said and I rise simply to say that I shall comply with the two points which were made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stress) and see that administrative steps are taken to make the position clear to all licensing authorities and request them to make the position clear to licence holders.

Amendment agreed to.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Committee might find it convenient to discuss the next Amendment, in page 3, line 16, at the end, to insert the words on the Order Paper, with the Amendment in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) on the next page of the Order Paper, to line 31, at the end to insert:
(3) For the purposes of this section an exhibition shall not be treated as an exempted exhibition if any child is admitted thereto unless the exhibition is given—

(a) as part of the activities of an educational institution or of a religious organisation; or
(b) by an organisation or person who has obtained a certificate of exemption from the licensing authority.



(4) Subject as hereinafter provided, the licensing authority shall grant to any organisation or person who applies therefor a certificate of exemption and may attach to such certificate such conditions or restrictions as that authority are obliged or empowered to impose by section three of this Act.
(5) If any organisation or person to whom a certificate of exemption has been granted fails to observe any of the conditions or restrictions attached thereto, that organisation or person shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, and the licensing authority may revoke the certificate and may thereafter refuse to grant a further certificate of exemption to that organisation or person.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 3, line 16, at the end, to insert:
or to the admission of children.
Hon. Members, will remember that, in introducing the Bill, I said that the Government would be prepared to consider putting down an Amendment to give licensing authorities power to impose conditions relating to the admission of children to non-commercial exhibitions given in licensed cinemas. I have had the debate checked up and, apart from an intervention by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), which the Committee will remember, no one in the Second Reading debate suggested that it was desirable that licensing authorities should be given this power. But, as you have indicated, Mr. Hopkin Morris, the position is rather changed today by the Amendment which has been put down to Clause 5, page 3, line 31, which you mentioned.
I understand that there was difficulty: hon. Members who are also members of the London County Council were not present at the Second Reading, because there was a meeting of that Council. I fully understand that and I am not complaining about their not mentioning the fact upon Second Reading. However, attention has now been directed to the point and I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee to have before them the possible Amendment to which I referred in introducing the Bill.
There is an important difference between our Amendment and the other Amendment to which you have referred. Under this Amendment licensing authorities would be empowered to impose conditions relating to the admission of children only when an exempted exhibition was given in a licensed cinema and

would not be able to impose such conditions when an exempted exhibition is given elsewhere. I have considered the matter and do not feel that it would be right to give licensing authorities power to control the admission of children to exempted exhibitions when they are given elsewhere than in a licensed cinema. I wish to put that point to hon. Members who, I know, have considered this matter very carefully.
An example which came to my mind is this. Suppose a local film society gives shows to its members in a village hall and the members bring their children with them. It would be a considerable burden on the society to have to apply to the licensing authority for permission to allow children to attend their exhibition. Moreover, I think, difficulties might arise if members of the society brought their children with them without the society knowing it was their intention to do so. I hope I am being practical and hon. Members opposite, I hope, will tell me if I am not. The Government feel, therefore, that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) would interfere too much with the activities of film societies and other non-profit making organisations.
12.15 p.m.
I am very anxious to try to gather opinion with me on this matter and to meet what seemed to me the general opinion. That is why I said on Second Reading that I thought there might be a case for giving licensing authorities power to control the admission of children to exempted exhibition in licensed cinemas in view of the public nature of the performances. In fact, I am told that many licensing authorities take the view that under the 1909 Act the licensing conditions are applicable when a cinema is being used by a non-commercial organisation which has hired the cinema for the purpose. The power which this Amendment proposes to confer on licensing authorities is, therefore, one which is already exercised by many licensing authorities.
On the other hand, as I have indicated, when a non-commercial organisation gives a cinema show in premises not licensed as a cinema, using non-inflammable film, the licensing authority has at present no powers of control. That is


the position at the moment and we have no evidence that this has had undesirable results or that there is any need to confer this additional power of control on licensing authorities.
I hope the Committee will realise that there are two things here and that I have tried to find a middle course which, I hope, will meet the position. I am putting forward this Amendment as a via media between the two schools of thought. I think there are hon. Members who consider it unnecessary for me to put down this Amendment and unnecessary for licensing authorities to have a power of control even of exhibitions in the cinema.
Nevertheless, one has the London County Council point of view that it should be more generally applied. Naturally, one wishes to consider the views of one of the most important licensing authorities. Therefore, I hope that the Committee may feel that my via media is viable, to use the modern jargon, and will think it is a way of meeting the two different views.

Dr. Stross: We have listened carefully, as we always do, to the Home Secretary and are very grateful for the way in which he put the case. The vast majority of us—I think almost all of us—feel that the Amendment in his name will not improve the Bill. We do not like it because, even though it goes not nearly so far as the suggestions of the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet), it still is not necessary as, indeed, the Home Secretary himself knows.
There is not one scrap of evidence which has been given up-to-date to show that this is needed. To legislate purely for legislation's sake, knowing that we may well find complications arising as a result of this step in future, giving rise to some grievance or hardship to people, seems to be totally unnecessary.
I know that my colleagues, including the hon. Member for Peckham, will not mind me saying that their Amendment as drafted would have brought great complications and difficulties because, in practice, it would have meant the introduction or re-introduction of licences for all exempted exhibitions, if any child were admitted, other than those organised by educational or religious organisations. That would

have been a bad thing, and I am sure that, on reflection, my hon. Friends will not press their point.
But the middle road suggested by the Home Secretary will also give rise to complications of a type which he himself has suggested. I will merely follow for a few moments what he has said to us. It means that parents cannot take their children, if the parents, are members of a cinema club, and have a boy or a girl aged 14 or 15 years, and if by any chance, through ignorance, they do take them, they will subject themselves to certain difficulties, and I take it that there would be some penalty.
At all events they would be breaking the law, although the Home Secretary does not add, and I am sure would not add, the penalties mentioned in the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friends, which would mean the possibility of loss of licence, apart from a possible fine of £20. The possible loss of the certificate of exemption and a refusal to grant it again seem to me a savage and most unusual penalty for Members sitting on these benches to propose. That is why I am sure they will not press the Committee to accept their proposal.
I beg the Home Secretary to understand—I am sure he does—that having given us, a few minutes ago, concessions with which the whole Committee agrees, he is, in attempting to meet pressure which has been applied, taking away a good deal of that concession. He has said that no child may go to an exempted exhibition if it is held on licensed premises. That is a severe blow at film societies all over the country.
We feel strongly about this matter. We did not see this Amendment until this morning, but we have had our consultations and we beg the Home Secretary not to force us to spoil the very amiable tenor of our discussions. We feel that this is a principle which should not be introduced. We wish him to withdraw it.
He has between now and the Report stage to consider the point of issue. When hon. Members on all sides of the Committee have spoken the Home Secretary will find that the bulk of opinion is roughly that which I am putting to him, however inadequately I may be doing


so. But I know I am putting it in a way which reflects his personal view after his personal examination of the matter, and I sit down confidently saying that we expect him to put this unfortunate matter right.

Mr. Reeves: I wish to point out the implications of this Amendment, which, I feel, has not been fully appreciated. It means, for example, that a film society, when it held a show in licensed premises or a cinema, would have to arrange for all the films to be shown to be viewed by the British Board of Film Censors and for those films to receive certificates for their respective categories, as they affect the attendance of children.
The cinema authorities themselves would have to give publicity, as they are now forced to do under the law, on the kind of film which is being shown. That would be a very great disability for a film society. Such a society not only shows classical and historical films but very often foreign films, and may import a foreign film for special exhibitions or even for a single exhibition. There is a special arrangement with the Customs for that to be done.
It would be difficult administratively if every film shown in a cinema by such a society was required to have its category defined for the purpose of legislatively protecting children. The nature of a film society, the fact that it is such a society, provides all the protection necessary. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) in that although I appreciate the desire of the Home Secretary to assist the L.C.C. in respect of their point of view, I hope that both he and the L.C.C. will think again before they press this and the other Amendment, to which I am not at the moment permitted to refer.
It would help us very much if that were to happen, and I appeal to the Home Secretary——

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Member is referring to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet), he is in order in discussing it.

Mr. Reeves: Thank you, Mr. Hopkin Morris. I hope that my hon. Friends who support this Amendment will think

again, because if it is carried it will mean that henceforth all local authorities will have the power to censor films shown by a great variety of organisations which now have freedom to show films. Those organisations have all done their job in a most responsible way. No one has ever complained about the films shown. No one has ever suggested that there should be any censorship of this type of film. For the last 30 years this state of affairs has continued unhindered. It would be a good thing if the Home Secretary were to withdraw the Amendment.

Mrs. Freda Corbet: I appreciate that I have a very difficult task here. We must bear in mind something which has perhaps not been realised, namely, that the new type of film will be very much superior to the old "nonfiam." 16 mm. type. Anyone who has been to a film show organised by a voluntary society will have experienced the annoying lack of clarity of presentation usually associated with its showing.
In addition, the body giving the presentation has, I understand, to make a copy of the original film and, in addition, has to use a special projector. The result has been, in the experience of the L.C.C., that there has not been a very great demand for the use of these facilities. That may be a reason why there is no evidence to suppose that there has been abuse.
One has to bear in mind that the very much superior facilities which will now be afforded to voluntary organisations will encourage a great many more organisations to come forward and make use of them. Indeed, there is no limit to the numbers and kinds or organisations which will seek to use them for their own purposes.

Mr. Reeves: The instrument which is used almost universally for this purpose is the 16 mm. projector, which is in use in all the schools of the country and in respect of which the Ministry of Education provides facilities not only for advice on manufacture but for servicing and the whole apparatus of exhibition. In the category which we are considering, it is the 16 mm. projector with which we are primarily concerned. It may have been an adequate instrument 20 years ago, but today it has a first-class competitor in the 35 millimetre projector.

12.30 p.m.

Mrs. Corbet: That is the view which my hon. Friend may hold, but which I am credibly informed is not so correct as he might seek to suggest. In fact, there are these difficulties which would no longer exist, and I submit that voluntary organisations or any other set of people will have a first-class instrument for conducting their propaganda.

Mr. Reeves: Will my hon. Friend tell us about this first-class instrument? I would like to know about it and I am sure the Committee would.

Mrs. Corbet: I understand that the new type of film will be equally useful for showing in a licensed cinema for commercial or non commercial purposes. I understand it will be a thoroughly satisfactory film and, therefore, will be used by voluntary organisations. The "non-flam" films were not subject to any control, but there were these difficulties.
There are organisations who might wish to show films unsuitable for children and I am sure that no one would wish to deny them that opportunity. I am just as anxious that there should be freedom for adults. The London County Council are rather afraid that commercial showings could be put on of very good films, and no charge made, or a collection made afterwards. They might be attended by a large number of people such as has not been the case in the past, because of the less satisfactory nature of the show, and there would be complete lack of restriction. Children may well be subject to the ordeal of seeing films which, as one hon. Member has said, they ought not to be allowed to see. The London County Council take the view that there may well be exhibitions which children ought not to be allowed to go.
This is a difficult problem. It is difficult for voluntary organisations to go ahead with the showing of films if they have first to get a licence. That is the reason why the L.C.C., in drafting this Amendment, felt it might be reasonable to allow the exemption of bodies such as are mentioned including educational and religious bodies. That deals with the objections raised by my right hon. Friend about the difficulties experienced by missionary organisations and educational bodies, who obtain a certificate

of exemption from the licensing authorities.
It was felt that youth clubs and certain other bodies could be trusted to see that children came to no harm, and the London County Council would be quite willing to trust those people. The Amendment also said that the licensing authorities shall grant certificates of exemption to which shall be attached conditions. All that anyone would need to do would be to apply for a certificate, which would automatically be granted with the conditions which would be such as to relate only to the welfare of children, and would seek to obviate the possibility of a show being given for adults accompanied by children which would be unsuitable for the children.
I would emphasise to the Home Secretary, if he feels that children should run no risk of seeing undesirable films such as were referred to on Tuesday by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) or films dealing with venereal disease, that we on the London County Council dealt with a film called "The Birth of a Baby," which showed the objectionable results of venereal disease, and the delivery of a baby——

Mr. Reeves: That was a commercial film.

Mrs. Corbet: Never mind, the County Council were able to exert control and see that the objectionable parts were cut out.

Dr. Stross: I think it only fair to make a point that that film was a commercial film and has no relation to what we are discussing. Has the hon. Lady any evidence of anything at any time to suggest that parents take their children to unsuitable exhibitions of the type we have in mind in discussing this Bill? If she has no such evidence I hope she will not press her point.

Mrs. Corbet: I referred to that film as an example of the kind of film which it is desirable children should not see. I am not prepared to admit that because no one has any evidence that children have attended such films they have not done so in the past. This is an opportunity for correcting any deficiency in the law to protect children——

Mr. Reeves: May I——

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has made several interruptions. I think it would be better for the hon. Lady to finish her argument, and then if he wishes to make further observations he can do so.

Mrs. Corbet: I have not a very great deal more to say, except that it has been found in the past experience of the London County Council that it is quite simple for them to license such people as the New London Film Society and the London Scientific Society who, though they mostly use 16 mm. films, have sometimes used the other film and, therefore, would be subject to control. They have a kind of block licence which imposes certain obligations which are readily accepted.
The London County Council would be glad if the Minister would look into the matter and try to find some way in which the welfare of the children could be safeguarded. The Council would be only too happy to make every possible concession provided they could obtain this safeguard. I would assure the Committee that the Council is not seeking to exercise further licensing powers. They are not anxious to gather licensing power. They have only one thing in mind, which is to seek to protect the welfare of the children. They are not tied to the Amendment and it is not my intention to press it; it was put down so that it might be discussed and the Minister be provided with an opportunity to consider the matter.

Mr. Norman Cole: May I ask the Committee to consider the combination of the two Amendments—the one put down by my right hon. and learned Friend and the other which has been moved by the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet). It is 43 years since we had an Act on this subject, and what we are dealing with today is not only the development which has taken place in those 43 years, and particularly in relation to the activities of film societies in the last 20 years, but we must also project our minds towards the development that will undoubtedly come in the next five or 10 years, during which time it is likely that we may have another Cinematograph Bill before us.
There is also the question concerning the film societies, which have done very

excellent research work in the last 20 years, in which direction they have done a great service to all of us who are keen on the cinema as entertainment, and it must be borne in mind that this work is growing every day in size and importance. I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that we are not concerned with the technical character of the film, and whether it is a public film, a private film or one made for commercial purposes.
We are not concerned with the question of whether it is a film being shown only from the point of view of research, and we are not concerned either whether it is being shown to members of a film society. This particular Amendment deals with the health and welfare of children, and I submit that the health and welfare of children is the same, no matter how the film may be regarded as entertainment. It does not matter what is the purpose of that entertainment.
Side by side with that, in fairness, we should presume that, if these members of film societies are intelligent enough to wish to belong deliberately to such a film society, they will be thoughtful and intelligent enough not to wish to take children to an unsuitable society film.
I think the position is different from public entertainment, where there are cases in which children are taken, because parents cannot always leave their children at home, and unfortunate circumstances do arise. Nevertheless, I am concerned by the fact that, in dealing with a technicality, and in giving all the assistance that we want to give to film societies, we might, at the same time, expose children going with their parents to certain danger regarding their health and welfare in the type of film that is shown, even where the parents are members of these societies.
There is another point I should like to mention. It has been the fact in the past, and still is, that a large number of these films shown by film societies are shown by reason of the fact that they may not necessarily obtain a censorship certificate for public entertainment, which underlines the remarks which have already been made as to the suitability of children going to such shows.
I should like to ask my right hon. and learned Friend if his Amendment and perhaps that of the hon. Lady opposite might be taken back for further consideration,


and brought up again on Report. I believe that there is good in both of these Amendments, and I think that we want to have a discussion on the prohibition of children attending film society shows, even if accompanied by their parents.
At the same time, there is undoubtedly a good case for a concession to the missionary and such societies, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend may consider these suggestions, bearing in mind that we want to look towards the future, as well as deal with what has happened in the past.

Sir R. Acland: I should also like to ask the Home Secretary if he will withdraw his Amendment and consider whether anything, and if so what, might be put in its place on the Report stage, because it does seem to me to draw back, almost at the last moment, a very great deal of the help which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has generously given on the earlier Amendments.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to suggest that all sorts of organisations showing films, including the missionary societies, in which I have a particular interest, must show their films to a censoring body. If they want to be free from risk and if they find out at the last moment that the showing was to take place in a hall to which children were not supposed to be admitted, and some parent comes along and takes them in, they may be breaking the regulations and they will be "for it." All this imposes a burden of administrative effort which seems to me to be out of proportion to the mischief against which the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbett) are trying to provide a safeguard.
12.45 p.m.
If I might refer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment, I should like to quote a particular example. One might ask if it is conceivable that any film shown by a missionary society could possibly fall foul of any licensing authority. There are certain points on which I would prefer to accept the somewhat elastic but highly conscientious judgment of the missionary societies, rather than the somewhat inelastic rule which a censoring or licensing authority is rather apt to apply.
Let me give a particular example. In the course of a film which tries to demonstrate

missionary activity in a certain country at the present time, it is quite possible that there will be a sequence showing the work of a missionary surgeon conducting an operation. I would prefer to trust such an organisation as a missionary society to have that sequence shot in a way that could not possibly be alarming or terrifying or in any other way nasty, rather than trust a licensing authority, which might lay down a rigid rule which will keep out the whole thing.
Particularly, it seems to me to be a little weak, when thinking of regulations which will restrict a number of very worthy organisations, when there is no evidence of any evil to be safeguarded against—though, for certain technical reasons, we have a slight suspicion that, a few years hence, there may be—and, therefore, we must impose these somewhat restricting regulations in case our fears should be fulfilled.
We have not yet seen fit to find means of safeguarding our children from the great evil influences of certain of the "comics" which are imported into this country from other places, and this just means that we are rather straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel if we pass regulations to safeguard them against a hypothetical evil of which, up to now, we have no concrete evidence.
For this reason, I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not press this Amendment, but that, if necessary, it may be discussed between now and the Report stage with a view to discovering if anything constructive can be done.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am quite willing to withdraw the Amendment so that there may be discussions afterwards, if hon. Members of the Committee feel that to be the proper way of dealing with it.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman actually does so, may I say, on behalf of some of my hon. Friends, that we are very much opposed to the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbett), for reasons which have been given by my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) and Greenwich (Mr. Reeves), as well as by the hon. Baronet the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland). We think it would be a retrograde step.
We realise that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has tried to find a form of words to suit all of us, but the only result of his efforts has been that many of us are violently opposed to it. My hon. Friends below the Gangway prefer their own Amendment, while, to box the compass, one hon. Gentleman on the Minister's side of the House prefers an amalgam of both. The only thing for the Government to do, if it wants to be sensible about the matter, is to take the Amendment back, not only to look at it again but to cut its throat
I would remind my hon. Friends that the right hon. and learned Gentleman promised earlier this morning to consider with the interests concerned the possibility of another Bill. The L.C.C. is a very important body and has a point of view which was originally put by two noble Lords in another place, and it is possible that there is something in what my bon. Friends have said. That being the case, would it not be better not to raise this issue again on Report, when we shall have the argument all over again, but to consider it with other matters which will be raised when the right hon. and learned Gentleman fulfils his promise, as I am sure he will. This matter and others concerning the industry could then be considered together, and something a little more suitable and reasonable to all concerned would, I am certain, eventuate.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If the way of the transgressor is hard, the way of the mediator is much harder. With the intention of giving everyone the chance of thinking over the matter again, and in view of the spirit in which the Bill has been discussed, I will withdraw the Amendment, and, if a convenient time arrives, perhaps I may be told what views are held. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In page 3, leave out lines 24 and 25, and insert:
(2) For the purposes of this section an exhibition shall not be treated as an exempted exhibition if.

In line 28, leave out "except that it does not include," and insert:
so however that this subsection shall not apply to."—[Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe.]

Sir R. Acland: I beg to move, in page 3, line 31, after "educational," to insert "or religious."
I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman would indicate whether he is minded to accept this Amendment.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: We do not think it is necessary but, like the patent medicine in the story, we do not think it does any actual harm. If the hon. Gentleman is anxious that it should be included, I am prepared to accept it.

Sir R. Acland: In that case, having moved it formally, I express my gratitude to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Stross: I beg to move, in page 3, line 31, at the end, to insert
or by any organisation which has been approved by the Education Authority and in respect of which the Commissioners of Customs and Excise have certified that the organisation is not conducted or established for profit.
There is one short point behind this Amendment. Not only in Stoke-on-Trent, but in other parts of the country, types of children's organizations have been set up, and in particular I have in mind the Northern Counties Children's Cinema Council which, like the Council in Stoke-on-Trent itself, is an organisation of teachers, parents and children who are enabled to put on special cinema shows and have regular meetings for the benefit of young children. We thought it would be sufficient if we included the words in the Amendment which allow the education authorities to approve, and on that approval an exemption could be obtained.
The Northern Counties Children's Cinema Council—I find it difficult to say the N.C.C.C.C.—is very well known to some hon. Members, including the Minister of Food, who has taken a great interest in its organisation. I think we should do well to give them the type of exemption referred to in the Amendment.

Sir Herbert Williams: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would make the Amendment clear. If an organisation is not established or conducted for profit, does that mean that it cannot make a profit? This type of organisation may make a profit, although


the money would be used for the collective benefit of members and not for distribution as dividends in any way. Under the Companies Act, a large number of companies in this country have no share capital in the ordinary sense; there is merely a guarantee if they are wound up. They are entitled to leave the word "limited" out of their title. But many such bodies do make a profit—they may run an exhibition for which they charge an entrance fee—but they are debarred from distributing the profit to the individual members. I wonder whether the words "conducted or established for profit" cover the form of organisation which we are discussing, because this could be a matter of substantial importance.

Dr. Stross: The point we are dealing with is narrow, although the form of words may appear to be broad. No new principle is admitted. The type of organisation which I have in mind is an organisation of teachers running a junior film club on experimental lines. At present such clubs are not covered by any of the exemptions in Clause 5, because they would be classed as children's clubs, according to the wording of the Bill. They are essentially educational, and that is why they should be granted some exemption.

Sir H. Williams: I think the hon. Gentleman has missed the point. Suppose they publish a handbook and sell it, receiving in revenue more than the cost of the printing, in that case, they would have made a profit, and this Amendment would not benefit them.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) is labouring under a misconception. He has been in the House for a very long time, on and off, and he should know that the phrase to which he takes exception has now become almost a term of art. We all know, and the Inland Revenue know, exactly what is meant by an organisation of this kind which is not established for profit. It does not mean that the organisation will not make profit.
As the hon. Member knows, the Customs and Excise issue a certificate in these cases. If the Amendment were accepted, it would mean that such organisations as have been mentioned by my hon. Friend would have to get a certificate

from the Customs and Excise, and that is what organisations of this character, which are exempt from Entertainments Duty, normally have to do. If there is any ambiguity in the words, and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is willing to accept the Amendment in spirit, we are quite willing to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that a form of words would be proposed on the Report stage which would meet the intention of my hon. Friend.

1.0 p.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I hope that on consideration the hon. Gentleman will find that he need not press this Amendment, because it does not seem necessary to myself or to those who have been advising me. I think it will be convenient if I deal with it in this order.
The object of subsection (2) is to ensure that children's cinema clubs run by commercial exhibitors do not escape licensing control because the public are not admitted. If an organisation such as the hon. Gentleman has described—the example I had in mind was a youth club, a film society, a church organisation, or, of course, the organisation he mentioned—gives cinema shows for children, such shows would not be subject to licensing simply because the children are members of a club, society, or association, provided that its objects are wider than attendance at cinema exhibitions. I should have thought that the example the hon. Gentleman had in mind would have the wider object. In that case there would not be the need which has been suggested for the approval of the organisations by the education authority.
I wondered whether the hon. Gentleman had in mind that they might have to go through the other procedure of going to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. I do not think they would. There is no need for them to have the certificate from the Commissioners, because clearly the education authority would not approve a commercial organisation, and if the children are members of a club the exhibition cannot be one for admission to which members of the public pay, so that in both ways I do not think the certificate is necessary. Therefore, I do not think there is the difficulty here. We have considered it very carefully, and I hope that on that assurance the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment.

Dr. Stross: I wonder whether I might ask one question of the Home Secretary before asking the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment? I thank him for the courtesy and consideration he has given to this matter. As I understand it, there are not many of these clubs in the country. We are hoping to see them extended, because they are specifically educational, and of an experimental nature. Their one purpose is to show films in which only children are interested, and they have nothing to do with adults in any way. Would it be fair to say that, from the very virtue of their being of an experimental nature, there will be no difficulty about the question of licence? Has the Home Secretary covered that point?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I cannot see any. I am told there would not be. I do not want there to be any doubt about it at all, and if the hon. Gentleman would care to put down an Amendment again for the Report stage I will look into the matter specifically. At the moment I do not think there would be.

Dr. Stross: I am most obliged. With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 3, line 32, to leave out from the beginning, to "an," and to insert:
Subject to the provisions of the last foregoing subsection.
This Amendment hangs, if I may use that phrase, with the following Amendments: In page 3, line 33, leave out from "by," to "shall," in line 34, and insert:
an exempted organisation in any premises";
in line 34, after "treated," insert
for the purposes of this section
and in line 35, leave out from "thereto," to end of line 40, and insert:
Provided that an exhibition shall not be treated for those purposes as an exempted exhibition by virtue of this subsection if on more than three out of the last preceding seven days the premises in question were used for the giving of a cinematograph exhibition which fell to be treated as an exempted exhibition by virtue of this subsection.
(4) In the last foregoing subsection the expression 'exempted organisation' means a society, institution, committee or other organisation as respects which there is in force at the time of the exhibition in question a certificate of the Commissioners of Customs

and Excise certifying that the Commissioners are satisfied that the organisation is not conducted or established for profit.
Perhaps, Sir Charles, you would allow them to be discussed together, if that meets the convenience of the Committee, because they all turn on the same point. It has been necessary, in order to make two Amendments of substance to subsection (3), to make extensive drafting alterations which include the division of subsection (3) into two parts. I am therefore asking the Committee to consider these Amendments together.
The two alterations of substance are, first, the proviso to the first new sub section. The effect of this is that if premises are used by a non-profit-making organisation for the purpose of giving exhibitions which members of the public pay to attend and the number of such exhibitions is more than three a week, a licence for the premises will be required. There is nothing in subsection (3), as it appears in the Bill, which would prevent a non-profit-making organisation with objects not connected with the showing of films from establishing a cinema and giving daily performances of ordinary entertainment films, which members of the public could pay to see, without having to obtain a cinema licence. It is obvious that that might be a method of raising funds for the organisation.
But it is our view that if the premises are used as frequently as three days a week for cinema performances at which the public pay, there is the same need for licensing authorities to have powers of control over safety and other matters as there is to have control over commercial cinemas. The proviso applies only to exhibitions for which the public pay for admission, and it would be open to any organisation to give performances to which the public are not admitted, or to which the public are admitted without payment, more often than three times a week without having to obtain a licence.
With regard to the new subsection, the Government's Amendment follows, with very minor alterations in wording, the proposal contained in the Opposition Amendment put down to page 3, line 35, to leave out from "if," to end of line 40, and insert:
the Commissioners of Customs and Excise have certified that the organisation is not conducted or established for profit.


It does not seem likely that the difficulty will arise in practice, but it is recognised that if it did it might place some non-profit-making organisations concerned with the showing of films in difficulties. I have therefore decided to accept the method proposed in that Opposition Amendment for avoiding this possibility.
I think that one ought to emphasise, as I did in dealing with the last Amendment, that it should not normally be necessary for film societies and other non-profit-making organisations to apply to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise for a certificate under this Clause. As I indicated when dealing with the other point, if the public are not admitted, or if the public are admitted without payment, no certificate is necessary. I hope that hon. and right hon. Members opposite will think that I have met them on this point, and that they will be able to accept the Amendment in the form which we feel would be most appropriate and suitable for the Bill.

Sir H. Williams: I find some difficulty in understanding this Bill. I think it is very obscurely written, if I may say so. It may be because it is amending an earlier Act. Frankly, I am not quite clear where we are at the moment. The Home Secretary seems to have had a change of thought or heart.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: May I put the point to my hon. Friend, because I do not think he was here when we discussed it? The point that was put to me was that if one made the exemptions by reference to a Finance Act and there was a change in fiscal policy and the Finance Act was changed, that might make changes here without the mind of Parliament being adduced to it. Over the long years I have had the pleasure of knowing the hon. Gentleman, I have heard him say something on legislation by reference. This was considered by various hon. Members in different parts of the House as being a vicious example of that, so I decided on consideration to meet that point and to substitute for a certificate under the Finance Act a certificate given ad hoc by the Commissioners, if I may put it in that way. I am afraid the way in which I dealt with the matter was rather following on our discussion on Second Reading, and if my explanation was not too clear to the hon. Gentleman, I do not

blame him; I blame myself, and I apologise.

Sir H. Williams: I still find it a little difficult to follow. For reasons beyond my control I could not be here during the Second Reading, so I missed the earlier part of my education on this subject. I take it that we are considering these Amendments together. The Home Secretary once said "four" and he now says "three." I have an Amendment down saying "two." If the Home Secretary has travelled part of my journey, perhaps he will decide to travel the rest of the journey.
I should like to come back to the point about organisations established for profit. Quite a number of manufacturing concerns have a cinema in their factory for certain purposes. The business as a whole is clearly conducted for profit, but the cinema may be used for all sorts of purposes for which people do not pay to attend. Educational films may be shown, for the education of the working people, and the firm may say, "You can bring: your wife along as well." The organisation is established for profit but the cinema is not. I want to make sure that we are clear that establishment for profit means that the film portion is non-profit making, although the organisation as a whole may be profit making.
I see no reason why a cinema conducted on those lines should not have the same advantages as a cinema conducted by some organisation which does not seem to make any profit at all. I tried to raise that point when the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) was speaking, because I thought it was one of substance.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: We are very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for accepting the point which had been put on Second Reading, not only from this side of the Committee but also from the benches behind him, and which has been described as the fiscal point. This Amendment, however, is in two parts. It is the part dealing with the three days a week to which we take exception. I ask him whether he would be willing to reconsider that part of the Amendment.
As we see it, there is not only no need for it but, in our view, it will lead to a large number of difficulties which I am


sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as well as the party to which he belongs, would not care to see. To begin with, is there not a Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents running an almost permanent film show somewhere in Knightsbridge? Surely these words—the Home Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—would prevent that very useful body from carrying on the magnificent work to which it is dedicated.
Then we might find in rural areas one society, say a missionary society, giving a film for one night in the village hall, or perhaps for two or three nights. Another society, just as much entitled to give a performance, may find that because the hall is booked for three nights in a particular week, it is completely barred from giving a performance. A film society may want to crowd into one week a festival of Chaplin comedies or French or Polish films, and it seems to us that, as drafted, this Amendment has great objections. Therefore, we should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to look at it again.
We are very grateful for half of this Amendment but we very much object to the other half. While we do not want to hold up the proceedings this afternoon, and while I am not sure whether it is possible for half the Amendment to be accepted and for half of it to be withdrawn, I would appeal to the Home Secretary to consider, between now and Monday next, when I think we shall come back to this Bill on Report stage, whether the points which we have made have not some validity in them and, if they have, do something to meet them.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I will certainly consider the point. I always like to make clear that I am not making any promise; I cannot commit myself in any way, but I shall consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the Court of Appeal used to say, at a certain time, with regard to complaints of counsel, "Are you suggesting the learned judge obtains silence by false pretences?" I do not want to do the same today, but I will certainly consider this matter.

Dr. Stross: May I say how grateful we are for the explanation which the Home Secretary has given us on this interesting and difficult point which we call the

fiscal point, and which, for the sake of brevity, I will continue to call the fiscal point. It is an important one, and one which could have proved very embarrassing if it had not been attended to. We are very grateful, therefore, for what he has said.

Amendment agreed to

Dr. Stross: I beg to move, in page 3, line 32, to leave out "an." and to insert "a public."
It seems that private or non-public organisations have been completely covered so far as exemptions are concerned and, therefore, I think that by inserting the words "a public" it would make quite clear that what we had in mind was that any organisation which obeyed the regulations already mentioned in the Bill would be able to get the exemption which we have been discussing.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I appreciate what was animating the hon. Gentleman, but we do not think the Amendment is necessary. The only exhibitions to which Clause 5 (3) applies are those for which the public pay for admission. A private exhibition to which the public are not admitted is covered by Clause 5 (1) and there is no need for a certificate to be obtained under Clause 5 (1).

Dr. Stross: Having heard that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In page 3, line 33, leave out from "by." to "shall," in line 34, and insert:
an exempted organisation in any premises.

In line 34, after "treated," insert:
for the purposes of this section.

In line 35, leave out from "thereto," to end of line 40, and insert:
Provided that an exhibition shall not be treated for those purposes as an exempted exhibition by virtue of this subsection if on more than three out of the last preceding seven days the premises in question were used for the giving of a cinematograph exhibition which fell to be treated as an exempted exhibition by virtue of this subsection.
(4) In the last foregoing subsection the expression 'exempted organisation' means a society, institution, committee or other organisation as respects which there is in force at the time of the exhibition in question a certificate of the Commissioners of Customs


and Excise certifying that the Commissioners are satisfied that the organisation is not conducted or established for profit.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, to leave out subsection (4).
The subsection is no longer necessary now that safety Regulations are not applicable to exempted exhibitions since I accepted an earlier Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir H. Williams: I beg to move, in page 3, line 45, at the end, to add:
(5) The exemption conferred in subsection (1) of this Section on cinematograph exhibitions to which the public are not admitted or to which the public are admitted without payment shall not have effect in any case in which

(a) the persons present exceed one hundred in number, and
(b) the primary purpose of the presence of such persons is to witness a cinematograph performance involving the showing of a film or films other than of a religious or educational character.

I move the Amendment on behalf of certain people who earn their living by means of the cinema and who believe that if they are not careful there will be too many concessions to exhibitions which are not for profit, and nobody will get any profit at all. Ultimately that will lead to a lot of unemployment, for if the cinemas become unsuccessful the type of film that most of us go to see will not be produced. There is a limit beyond which we should not go in providing facilities for those who exhibit films for educational and other purposes. The people who desire the Amendment are animated by their own self-interest and by the interest of those whom they employ. The Amendment is really self-evident. I have tried briefly to present the argument that the time may come when the ordinary industry will be threatened if there are vast numbers of free shows.

Sir R. Acland: I have never encountered such an un-Christian Amendment as this one. It does precisely what we accuse the Communists of doing. It treats people as means and not as ends.

Sir H. Williams: What does that mean?

Sir R. Acland: I deeply regret that the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) has not made the acquaintance

of that characteristically and deeply Christian phrase so as not even to know what it means. It means that the Christian approach treats an individual as an end in himself for whose benefit the community and the laws that we pass exist. The totalitarian treats the individual not as an end in himself but as a means to somebody else's ends.
In his Amendment the hon. Member for Croydon, East is treating the individual as a means for making profit for the cinema industry and he wants to safeguard the situation in which it is sure that people shall be treated as this means to that end. What he is worried about is that voluntary societies, which have the approval and support of nearly all hon. Members, may be so successful in providing for individuals the entertainment which they desire that the individuals will cease to act as the means of making profits for cinema companies. He has thrown in a piece about unemployment to try to arouse a little co-operative sympathy for his case among the Opposition. I very much hope that the Amendment will not be proceeded with.

Sir H. Williams: After all that unadulterated nonsense, I must add a few more words. I shall get hold of a copy of HANSARD tomorrow and send it to Canon Smyth, who officiates just over the road, and I shall ask that learned scholar to let me know what the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) was driving at, for I have no idea.
It is just as well to bear in mind that the amount paid out in wages in most occupations is about 15 times the amount disbursed in profits. Naturally, the hon. Member for Gravesend does not know anything about industry, because he has never been concerned with it, but it is just as well to bear that in mind. As for those who think that profit is evil and anti-Christian, what is the difference between a Socialist and a Communist anyhow? They both believe in Karl Marx. It is no good the hon. Gentleman talking Christianity to me, because the Founder of his faith did not believe in it either.

Dr. Stross: I shall not attempt to address the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) on moral grounds, because he does not appreciate them.


Perhaps I might appeal to him on other grounds in the hope of finding agreement. He asks that the exhibitions should be limited in two ways, that those attending should not exceed 100 and that the performance should be of a certain type. I observed a flash of lightning just then and now I hear thunder outside. That must be the result of appealing on too high moral grounds.
Is it not a fair presumption that the British Board of Film Censors or the licensing authorities will have to be called in to determine the character of the films which would be shown? Does not this establish a new form of censorship? If the hon. Member agrees with that, I am sure he will accept that there is little to be said in favour of his Amendment.

Mr. Reeves: The Amendment is in the nature of penal legislation in that it penalises a certain section of the community who wish to do work which, although it may not be described as religious or educational, may still come in the category of being socially beneficial. The hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) has said that he is acting on behalf of some of his friends. I hope they are Croydon friends. I am sure that the cinematograph industry would not like it to be said that the Amendment was being submitted in its name. The C.E.A. would feel very uncomfortable if it were thought that the hon. Member for Croydon, East was speaking on its behalf.
I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment. I am sure the industry is big enough if necessary to tolerate and encourage the educational, religious and other cinematograph activities which enrich the community and can by no stretch of the imagination be classified as competing with the industry. This is a supplementary activity which men and women are invited to undertake, and in most cases the cinemas are only too delighted to offer the facilities of their establishments out of business hours for the work to be done.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) will not press the Amendment. I am anxious that in connection with a Bill in which we have tried to keep the balance between all the interests concerned, the impression should not

go out that the industry which serves this great source of entertainment to the public has been ignored.
1.30 p.m.
Those of us who have considered every Amendment relating to this Clause have probably appreciated that an effort is made in regard to licensing to bring in the equivalent of a commercial undertaking if it is disguised. Equally, in answer to requests from both sides of the House, I have undertaken that on any question of Regulations or the like I shall consult the industry. I should never dream of doing anything else. I want to make that point quite clear.
With regard to the personal difficulty in which my hon. Friend found himself, if he wants a quick and—if I may use a colloquialism—a snappy development of the statement made by the hon. Baronet as to the distinction between treating humanity as the means to an end and as the end itself, he will find it in Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" which takes only about 500 pages to make the point crystal clear.

Sir H. Williams: I should like to point out to hon. Members opposite, especially the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland), who objected to my reference to religious legislation, that he himself sought to put in the word "religious" in line 31. He should not make that funny kind of speech when he has done that. It is not a test of consistency.
However, having regard to what has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Peter Legh: I do not want to delay the Committee for more than a few minutes in saying one or two words about this Clause. I think they will appreciate the difficulty I am in in that this is perhaps the only chance I may have to say some of the things I had hoped to be able to say a little earlier in to-day's proceedings.
The main object of this Clause is to define exempted exhibitions and to set out the concessions which are going to be made in respect of them. In my view, the most notable concession which my


right hon. and learned Friend has made is contained in the Amendment which he moved himself earlier on and which the Committee agreed to accept. This Amendment provides that any safety Regulations which might be made under this Bill will not apply to exempted exhibitions using non-inflammable films on premises which are not licensed as cinemas.
In moving that Amendment this morning, my right hon. and learned Friend carried out the promise which he made during the Second Reading debate three days ago. When he made that promise, he said:
… in view of the concern that has been shown about the possible misuse of the power to impose safety requirements by regulation, we have decided to move an Amendment in Committee to make it clear that where exempted exhibitions are given in premises which are not licensed as a cinema, these safety requirements will not be applicable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 885.]
That promise has been fulfilled. I thanked him very much at the time when he made that promise and I should like to thank him again now for having carried it out.
I know that Church societies, missionary societies, and all the cultural and educational bodies which regularly give exhibitions using non-inflammable films in all sorts of buildings will also thank him. He will also be thanked by the inhabitants of remote villages. This concession is yet another example of the desire of this Government to make the people happy. At any rate we wish to let them see cinema exhibitions, if not to make them sing.
However, I do not think that this laudable ambition can have been the only consideration which my right hon. and learned Friend had in mind when he moved the Amendment to which I am referring. I think he must have reflected that it is still true, as it was true in 1939, when an expert committee advised the Home Office, that the risk of fire from non-inflammable films is negligible, or even non-existent. From a safety angle, the risk of fire is the only important issue and I submit that from the safety angle it is only the risk of fire which distinguishes a cinematograph exhibition in a village hall from a political meeting or a dance.
It is for that reason that I—and, I believe, some of my hon. Friends—think that the definition in this Clause of an exempted exhibition is not wide enough. If one is agreed that the risk of fire is negligible when non-inflammable film is used at an exempted exhibition, then one must agree that the risk is also negligible when non-inflammable film is used at exhibitions which are not exempted. It surely cannot be argued that in a material sense a non-inflammable film is less inflammable at an exempted exhibition than at any other kind of exhibition.
That is why I should like to see the definition of an exempted exhibition widened in order to include those occasional commercial exhibitions of noninflammable films—35 mm. or 16 mm.—which are given by small operators who, travel round the country from village to village, giving shows in village halls. Those shows are an enormous blessing to the inhabitants of remote villages who very often do not get the chance to see any other sort of film show.
I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider, between now and the Report stage, putting down an Amendment in order to widen the definition of exempted exhibitions so as to include this type of show. Some of my hon. Friends and I are frightened that these particular exhibitions might in time become extinct. It may be that stringent safety regulations will be made under this Bill when it becomes law. I would ask him to consider saying something about the matter now and telling us whether he could meet me and some of my hon. Friends because it would then be very much easier to decide whether or not I should put down a new clause for consideration on the Report stage.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said in the earlier part of his speech, but there are one or two points that I would ask him to bear in mind about the latter part of it. He referred to the 1939 Committee, which did not recommend that licensing control should be extended to 16-mm. films. I would remind him of the words of that Committee in coming to that conclusion. They said:
… we have taken into account the facts as they were presented to us. If the use of slow-burning films were to develop widely, if for example a big entertainment industry based on their use were to grow up, we think


that our conclusions would then call for review.
That is nearly 13 years ago, and I think that the matter does require further inquiry, which I think we have had in the course of this very interesting debate.
I would point out one fact with regard to the commercial exhibitions in the village halls which, I believe, is the one remaining point which is really worrying my hon. Friend. It is already necessary for a village hall to be licensed in the case of public music, dancing or for a theatrical purpose. I do not think that a political meeting, even one of my hon. Friend's, would come within the definition of a theatrical performance. Therefore, they do not require a licence. The licence is required for public music, dancing and theatrical performances.
When they grant a licence for those purposes, the authority can impose safety arrangements. I am advised by those who are always considering these matters that it is most unlikely that the safety arrangements which will apply when cinema shows using non-inflammable films are given in village halls will be much stricter than the Regulations already imposed. I think that meets the point made by my hon. Friend.
We come down to safety. If my hon. Friend considers that no stricter requirements will be needed than those which are already there for a dance or some musical performance, I hope that he will consider that the point is met. It would create great difficulties if the licensing authority were unable to concern itself with matters connected with the safety of the audience. The arrangements which we can expect in this regard will not be a great embarrassment. I felt I ought to answer my hon. Friend. I hope that the Committee will now give us the Clause.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The opportunity should be taken for someone on this side of the Committee to add a few words before we part with the Clause. After all, there have been nearly three pages of Amendments to it and we have spent most of our time on it.
Two reflections arise from what has happened on the Clause. The first is that the Bill originated in another place. Normally it is considered that in the calmer atmosphere there it is possible to revise legislation, but we have had to go

in for a good deal of revision of a Bill which ostensibly came down to us in a perfect state. The second reflection that comes to me is this. The hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Legh) said it was the object of the present Government to make people happy and that the changes in the Clause were an evidence of that. If that is so, most of the happiness that will arise in the Clause has come from pressure put upon the Government from this side of the Committee.

Mr. Legh: The right hon. Member may recall that I made that remark in connection only with a particular Amendment in the name of the Home Secretary, freeing exempted exhibitions from the safety Regulations resulting from the Bill. He will also remember that I made a point about it on Second Reading, and I believe that he agreed with it.

Mr. Hall: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, of course. I followed what he said on Second Reading and I felt there was everything to be said for what he put to his right hon. and learned Friend on that occasion. I felt that if the Amendment were called—there was no need for it to be called, as a matter of fact—the hon. Gentleman would have found considerable support for it on this side of the Committee.
My final remark before I sit down and we part from the Clause for ever is that if the Government had really thought about these matters before they produced the Bill, three or four hours' work this morning, as well as a lot of work in the Library between the Second Reading and now, would have been obviated, and all of us would have been in the same position as we are in now.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(APPEALS.)

1.45 p.m.

Mrs. Corbet: I beg to move, in page 4, line 25, at the end, to insert:
(5) The Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State acting jointly shall make rules regulating the appointment of assessors to advise courts of quarter sessions on questions of public safety and welfare arising in connection with appeals under this section.
In the past, local authorities have been the final court of appeal, so to speak, in matters of public safety and welfare in


connection with this subject. Naturally, they are now apprehensive about what is to happen as a result of the Bill and particularly as to how the judgments of the Appeal Court will affect their own work. They hope that the decisions of the courts of quarter sessions specified in the Bill, will be reasonable and practicable, but these courts deal mainly with criminal matters. The decisions that are arrived at by them might not be applicable in all respect to the work of the local authorities, for instance, in matters of child welfare, public safety and standards of building construction. Those are all technical matters, on which one would not expect courts of quarter sessions to have very special knowledge.
My local authority think that it is better to have a public administrative tribunal which would cover all this knowledge and be able to give competent, reasonable and satisfactory decisions in these matters. It was not possible to put down an Amendment for the appointment of such a tribunal, as it would have involved a charge on public funds, but perhaps the Government would agree to withdraw their Clause and move a new Clause on the Report stage, providing for a tribunal somewhat on the lines of the Lands Tribunal.
We ask that the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State should make rules for regulating the machinery for the appointment of assessors, and it is hoped that under those rules the courts will be bound to appoint assessors upon the written request of a local authority. If we can get such a new Clause providing for specially qualified assessors we shall feel satisfied to some extent. The other point which I wish to make has escaped me for the moment, but I think I have generally covered the point of view of my local authority.

Mr. Henry Brooke: I do not normally find myself supporting the hon. Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet), but I ought to testify that the object which she is seeking to achieve is one which would be supported by all members of the London County Council, although there may well be differences of opinion as to the right methods. Up to now, as the hon. Lady says, there has been no general right of appeal from the decision of the licensing authorities. The London County Council has the largest sphere of

work in this matter, and probably has had to face the most difficult cases and has the largest experience.
I am not opposing the idea of there being an appeal from the decisions of the licensing authority, though, in the past, there have not been many cases likely to have gone to appeal. I am, however, anxious to ensure that when Clause 6 is enacted there will result a uniform and generally acceptable and workable code of standards. The fear on the part of the members of the London County Council is that if these occasional appeals go to quarter sessions, with no expert guidance available, one may have, if not erratic decisions, sometimes conflicting decisions and sometimes decisions not based on that amount of technical knowledge which is at the disposal of a great licensing authority such as London.
I do not know what is in the mind of my right hon. and learned Friend. I do not know whether he apprehends this danger to be serious, but I hope he will recognise that the purpose behind this Amendment is one which we should all pursue in all good faith, and that it is most desirable, not only for the convenience of the licensing authorities but for the general public interest, that people shall know where they are and that there shall be a generally accepted and understood code of standards to which these final decisions will regularly conform.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: When I saw this Amendment on the Order Paper and realised what it meant, some of my hon. Friends and myself did not look upon it with favour. It occurred to me that it would not be a pleasant thing to oppose my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet), who moved her Amendment with such felicity, particularly as we opposed her and her friends earlier in our proceedings today. However, when the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) spoke, I felt quite sure where my duty lay. If he is in favour of something we look at it with even greater care than hitherto.
I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he should not accept this Amendment for the very reasons given by the hon. Member for Hampstead. A suggestion of this kind, which would inevitably mean the appointment of many assessors, would not lead to uniformity but obviously to the reverse because, if I


understood the argument of my hon. Friend aright, it was that these assessors would be people who knew the local circumstances.

Mrs. Corbet: I was referring to technical matters such as building construction, which, I imagine, would be uniform all over the country.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I agree that they should be. Perhaps the gloss which my hon. Friend puts on the matter is the right one.
However, as I see it there has been no real complaint of the way these things are handled, whereas the appointment of accessors would be cumbersome and we should not get uniformity but the reverse, because from area to area different standards would apply. We heard from the right hon. and learned Gentleman earlier that he will examine this, particularly with reference to children. Therefore, I suggest to my hon. Friend that the right course would be to leave it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider the cinema and its relation to children in conjunction with the other things he has in mind.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: I am sorry not to be able to agree with my hon. Friend. I feel quite differently about the matter. This appeals procedure is new. We do not know how many people will avail themselves of it and how many will not, but I believe that they may not be numerous. If that is the case then it is of the greatest importance that the decisions on appeal in different parts of the country should be as uniform as we can make them, and only if we have the advice of assessors on technical points for those who are engaged in quarter sessions shall we get uniform decisions.
Nevertheless, I agree that we are talking hypothetically. If the Home Secretary is willing to give careful consideration to the points we have raised, I, for one, and I think my fellow members of the London County Council also will be quite ready to leave it to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to bring forward any Amendment he may think desirable on the Report stage.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sorry that I could not honestly take the course in this case which the hon. Gentleman has

been good enough to put to me. It would, be quite impossible in a weekend to recast the Bill on the question of appeal to quarter sessions to an appeal to a special tribunal. I shall give careful attention to how this will work out. If the fears which have been expressed as to the way it will work out are in any way justified, or the councils make representations, those representations will be carefully considered and we shall bear in mind the feeling that there ought to be a new form of appellant machinery.
It would be wrong for me to go further than that. I do not want to go into the arguments because I know that the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) have considered all these points. The principle of an appeal in an administrative matter to one or other of the Queen's courts—either to petty sessions or to quarter sessions—is not a new one. It covers a great variety of Acts such as the Public Health Act, the Factories Acts, Civil Defence Acts, and so on. I am sure that apart from the constitution of the bench, the method of hearing experts and of hearing them cross-examined, is one which has worked well in regard to that type of appeal. I shall look at this new subject matter with great interest and also with the care that I have promised. If any difficulty arises, I shall be only too happy to look at it.

2.0 p.m.

Mrs. Corbet: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10.—(SHORT TITLE, CITATION, EXTENT AND COMMENCEMENT.)

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I beg to move, in page 5, line 24, to leave out subsection (3), and to insert:
(3) This Act shall come into operation in England and Wales on such date as the Secretary of State may, by statutory instrument, appoint for those countries, and in Scotland, on such date as the Secretary of State may, by statutory instrument, appoint for Scotland.
This Amendment will enable the Bill to be brought into force at different dates for Scotland and for England and Wales. The dates will be determined in the case of Scotland by the Secretary of State, and by the Home Secretary in the case of England and Wales. To this extent the


Amendment fulfils the objective of the Amendments tabled by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), who unfortunately, is not here today.
The right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) asked earlier what was the purpose or point of the Amendment and whether it could be justified. The answer is that I think it can be justified. It offers a certain amount of flexibility. For example, for one reason or another regulations might very well be ready in England sooner than in Scotland, or vice versa. It would seem to be a pity that the public and the cinemas in one country or the other should be deprived of whatever privileges arise from the regulations merely because the other side of the Border had not gone quite so far.
It is not a very important matter and one does not regard it too seriously, but it is a fair point to make. We are anxious to meet the views of our Scottish colleagues, and on the whole, therefore, this proposal is a good thing to do.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: In thanking my hon. Friend for moving the Amendment, and particularly for his reference to the possibility of flexibility in the administration of the Bill in Scotland, I should like to ask him to make sure that flexibility is not merely a word that is used in this Committee now and forgotten when the administrators get to work, but that it is, in fact, applied.
My hon. Friends and I have in mind the desirability that the Secretary of State, in administering the Bill when it becomes law, should take whatever opportunities are available to consult the cinema industry and the exhibitors. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary and I have already referred to the point that the cinema exhibitors in Scotland, as to 80 per cent. of them, are not the same exhibitors in England and Wales.
My hon. Friends and I, therefore, would be grateful if in flexibly adminstering the Bill when it becomes an Act, attention will be paid to the desirability of constant contact with the cinema exhibitors as well as with the licensing authorities, in order to keep constantly in mind the local conditions and standards, which in many respects are distinctive, north of the Tweed.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: When dealing with an earlier Amendment, when reference was made to this one, I wondered what reason the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland would give for it. I knew that he would be hard put to it to find a reason, and, of course, he has been. As I understand it, the reason—to us it has always been obvious—is that we are more efficient south of the Border than they are in the North, but what effect that acknowledgment will have on the hon. Gentleman's chances in Scotland at the next Election I tremble to think.
Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who had so much to say on Second Reading and who put their names to various Amendments which have been on the Order Paper, should have had the courtesy to be here today to move them. I commiserate with the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) in having to "carry the baby" throughout these proceedings. He has done it extremely well, but, nevertheless, he must now be faint with hunger. As this is, I imagine, a purely Scottish matter, we on this side have no objection to the Amendment and do not intend to oppose it.

Mr. William Ross: I do not see any reason for the Amendment. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said that he was meeting the questions raised by the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), but my recollection of the right hon. and gallant Member's speech is that he did not think this was at all the way to meet his point of view. All he said was that this offered a certain amount of elasticity, referring only to the time it would take for the Administration to gather up all the various points.
The proof of the sincerity of the Under-Secretary or of the Government to try to meet the case of Scotland will be in the regulations. If the hon. Gentleman presupposes that the Scottish regulations are to come after those for England, and if he properly uses that interval to meet people who have been showing a certain concern at this departure and this hampering uniformity that is suspected, well and good. We cannot, therefore, judge the merits of the Amendment until we see the regulations.
If the regulations for Scotland are to be different from those for England, not only in words but in spirit. I should be prepared to accede to the Amendment, but the hon. Gentleman should not try to "kid" us about meeting all the Scottish objections and, by this sort of face-saving Amendment, try to meet the wishes of his hon. Friends, who, if they had had the courage, would have gone into the Division Lobby instead of withdrawing their Amendments today.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I would point out to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that one of the names to the Amendment of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), at the top of page 2253 of the Order Paper, is that of the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin). It appears, therefore, that the desire for this kind of Amendment was shared both by my hon. Friends and by some, at any rate, of the Scottish Opposition Members. In trying to meet their desires, I thought that I was satisfying a wish that has been expressed by Scottish Members from all sides of the Committee.

Mr. Ross: This was not the only Amendment to be put down, but it is the only one which the Government have gone any way to meet.

Mr. Stewart: That is true. Had the hon. Member been present at the beginning—

Mr. Ross: I was.

Mr. Stewart: —he would have heard me say that for a variety of reasons one of those Amendments could not be accepted.
There is not much more that I need say. I was simply being modest and polite with the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) when I suggested that England might have its regulations sooner than Scotland. In fact, I am hoping that we shall have ours ready before England, and I think, therefore, that Scotland will probably gain.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule.—(MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF 9 EDW. 7. c. 30.)

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 6, to leave out line 29.
This is really a consequential Amendment. In the Bill as originally drafted subsection (4) of Section 7 of the 1909 Act was replaced by subsection (4) of Clause 5 of the Bill read in conjunction with subsection (1) of that Clause. Clause 5 (4) has now been deleted and it is, therefore, necessary to restore subsection (4) of Section 7 of the 1909 Act which provides that the Act shall not apply to an exhibition given in a private dwellinghouse to which the public are not admitted, whether on payment or otherwise.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 157.]

Orders of the Day — DEFAMATION BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 11.—(AGREEMENTS FOR INDEMNITY.)

Lords Amendment: Leave out lines 21 to 23 and insert:
shall not be unlawful unless at the time of the publication that person knows that the matter is defamatory, and does not reasonably believe there is a good defence to any action brought upon it.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

2.13 p.m.

Sir Patrick Spens: A number of us did not like Clause 11 when the Bill was considered in Committee, nor at a later stage, but when it was passed by this House it was limited in extent. The objection in principle was to indemnities being given to persons who were going to perpetrate libels on other people which might do very great damage. As drafted, it was limited to cases where a person did not know that the matter was defamatory. In other words, it was limited to the sort of case we were mainly discussing in this Bill where libel was committed by accident, so to speak.
Now the provision comes back to us with additional words which very substantially extend the scope of the Clause, because now such an indemnity will still be lawful even though a person knows that he is going to publish defamatory matter, provided he can also say that he has some reasonable ground for believing that there was a good defence to the action. Who is the person who is to be protected by this Clause? As a rule it will not be a lawyer but a layman, a journalist. Probably he will be protected by the proprietor of a paper who says, "Yes, go ahead, publish this; if it turns out to be defamatory and gets you into trouble, I am going to indemnify you."
As the Bill left this House, no indemnity would be given if it were known that the matter was defamatory. If it were defamatory, one could not get any valid indemnity against publishing it. Now, as it comes back to us, one can deliberately publish matter which one knows to be defamatory and be indemnified in respect of it, provided one can say that one has a reasonable belief that there is a good defence to an action.
That means that the person will say, "I believe this is the sort of thing we ought to be able to get away with by way of defence; there ought to be some sort of defence," or something of that sort. How a court is going to find out whether a layman has a reasonable belief that there is a good defence or not, I simply do not know. What I do know is that this is extending the scope by giving an indemnity to a man who is deliberately going to publish defamatory matter in a way which I think is wrong and ought not to be encouraged.
At an earlier stage, I expressed very strong views about indemnities being given to anyone by another person to commit a tort. I think it is utterly wrong in principle, and I believe it ought to be narrowed down as much as possible. But to give an indemnity to a person who is deliberately going to publish defamatory matter provided he has some sort of idea that if an action for libel is brought there would be some sort of valid defence to the action, and remembering that that person in nine cases out of 10 will be a layman—not a lawyer—seems a most unwarrantable extension of this principle, and I strongly object to it.

Mr. N. H. Lever: I listened with great respect to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens). It is interesting to know that in this day and age he holds the view that there ought not to be indemnity against the commission of a tort. I take it that the hon. and learned Member considers that motorists should drive cars without third party insurance. That is a view which is not widely held in this country.
I believe this Clause is no more than declaratory of the law as it stands. Some doubts have been expressed, but all this Clause does is, not to indemnify anyone, but to allow people to secure indemnity against actions for defamation and to ensure that it shall not be voided as unlawful merely because the publisher knows that what he is about to publish is defamatory, if he has reasonable grounds for supposing that he has good defence. I am sure that the hon. and learned Member would not want to preclude insurance against this sort of thing.
Supposing a publisher gets a Reuter report that someone has been convicted of a criminal offence and publishes it. Of course he knows it is defamatory; there is nothing sinful about publishing what you know is defamatory. If he publishes that Mr. Smith was sent to prison for three years for bigamy, he has reason to think that he has a reasonable defence. In those circumstances, surely, we would all say that the insurance protecting the publisher should not be voided as unlawful merely because it turned out that Reuter's man at Liverpool Assizes had made a slip.

Sir P. Spens: What happens to Mr. Smith?

Mr. Lever: Mr. Smith has a perfectly good case of action against the newspaper and Reuter's. It does not affect the rights of the party maligned in any way. I think the House can set its mind at rest that the rights of the libelled parties are not affected in any way. It might assist the hon. and learned Member if I point out that the person who is libelled gains, because this means that the insurance policy covering the newspaper will be valid. If the newspaper has not the money to pay damages, the person libelled will have the right of recourse against the people insuring the newspaper.
In those circumstances, I would respectfully urge that, unless one accepts the view of the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South that we ought not to have insurance policies covering any tort, which he frankly avows is his position, the Clause should be in this amended form.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: When a man buys a motor car he does not intend to injure anybody with it. He buys it and drives it for his own amusement. But even before the legislature interfered, such a person realised, if he was prudent, that he would not always be driving at his best and would sometimes make mistakes, and accordingly he insured himself against them, both for his own protection and for the protection of any innocent victim of his carelessness.
That is very different from the kind of indemnity involved in this Clause, and if the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) declared himself to be against contracts of indemnity for the commission of torts, I think that, in spite of the words he used, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham (Mr. N. H. Lever) did him rather an injustice in not appreciating that what he had in mind was contracts of indemnity to commit deliberate torts, not accidental ones.
That should be borne in mind in view of the extension of the argument by my hon. Friend, which I am sure he will appreciate was not really justified by the arguments advanced. He is really saying that this Amendment is a very good one, that indeed it is an obvious one if only declaratory of the present law, and that there is really no harm in it. In that case, it is a little curious that it should only be thought of at this stage of the argument.
We had a Second Reading debate, when the Clause was in its unamended form and nobody quarrelled with it. We had a long Committee stage in which no one put the point which my hon. Friend is now inviting the House to say is so obvious. My hon. Friend did not propose any Amendment to the form in which the Clause left this House to go to another place. It is rather curious, if the Amendment is so innocuous and necessary and as obvious as he says it

is, that he should not have thought so until it came to us from the House of Lords.

Mr. N. H. Lever: Could I assist my hon. Friend? The point was taken by the noble Lord who leads the Labour Party in the House of Lords. It is a point which seemed to escape our attention in the Committee, where the Clause was not debated, so that this defect was not realised. When the noble Lord who leads the Labour Party in another place drew attention to this defect, the Clause was, by agreement in another place, amended in the form proposed in the Amendment.

Mr. Silverman: I thought that that was exactly what I was saying. I said that if the point is as obvious as we are now asked to believe, it is curious that nobody thought of it before. My hon. Friend has intervened to say that no one did think of it before, and that is exactly what I was saying. He said it never occurred to anybody until it occurred to the noble Lord who, added to his qualifications, is a member of the same party as my hon. Friend and myself, which of course makes him an infallible judge on this point.
I do not think that my hon. Friend is doing himself justice in thinking that this Amendment is quite so straightforward, simple or obvious as he pretended. If it were, I do not think that it would not have occurred to him at an earlier stage, or to the Attorney-General or to any Member of the Committee, which I hope most people would deem to be—no doubt with some exceptions—an extremely capable, able and experienced Committee, examining the Bill upstairs with precisely the object of making certain that it should improve the law of libel so far as it was, within the four corners of its Title, capable of doing so.
I agree entirely with what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South. If there are to be contracts of indemnity at all, and there are cases where there should be, they ought not to extend to a case in which a man knows that what he is doing is, on the face of it, a tort. I prefer the Clause as we left it in Committee and as it left the House. Clause 11, as we left it, stated:
An agreement for indemnifying any person against civil liability for libel in respect of


the publication of any matter is lawful unless the agreement relates or extends to the publication of matter which the person indemnified knows to be defamatory.
I think that is as far as we should go. We should go as far as that, but I see no reason why we should go further. I object very strongly to the alteration that we are being asked to approve.

Mr. David Weitzman: I am tempted to intervene because I cannot understand what is the objection being put forward here. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) was good enough to read Clause 11, and if the House would bear with me I should like to remind the House again of the words which my hon. Friend has just read. The words at the end of the Clause read:
unless the agreement relates or extends to the publication of matter which the person indemnified knows to be defamatory.
This Amendment seeks to leave those words out of the Clause, and merely to add a number of other words, namely:
shall not be unlawful unless at the time of the publication that person knows that the matter is defamatory,"—
the words of the original Clause, and then to add—
and does not reasonably believe there is a good defence to any action brought upon it.
How anybody can quarrel with that and say it is not eminently reasonable when it adds, as it were, to the protection given to the individual, I do not know. I hope that the House will certainly agree with the Amendment.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: I have been a little puzzled myself. There is a certain amount of confusion which results from a double negative included in the form of the Amendment. I am dealing purely with the question of construction, not the merits or demerits one way or another. As I understand it, the effect of this Clause would be clear, and the truth of it would be expressed, if we left out the words
knows that the matter is defamatory, and …
and simply leave it to read
does not reasonably believe there is a good defence to any action"—
for defamation—
brought upon it.

The words
knows that the matter is defamatory
do not limit the defence in any way. I think the confusion arises from the double negative. If my hon. Friend has a different view on it, I should be glad to hear it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 14.—(APPLICATION OF ACT TO SCOTLAND.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 48, leave out "and," and insert:
(c) subsection (2) of section four shall have effect as if at the end thereof there were added the words 'Nothing in this subsection shall be held to entitle a defender to lead evidence of any fact specified in the declaration unless notice of his intention so to do has been given in the defences.'; and

Mr. N. H. Lever: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment deals purely with Scotland and arises as a result of the lengthy and vivacious argument conducted between the Scottish Law Officer and his predecessor the last time the Bill was debated. I trust that the agreement which they have reached, which is embodied in the Amendment, will commend itself to the House.

The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald): I beg to second the Motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Schedule.—(NEWSPAPER STATEMENTS HAVING QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE.)

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 8, at end, insert:
or of any foreign country or province or state of a foreign country.

2.30 p.m.

Mr. N. H. Lever: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
These words, which have been restored in another place, were considered by this House on Report stage and were rejected by a small majority. In another place there was unanimity in feeling that they are desirable and, therefore, action was taken to enable this House to have another look at the matter.
The effect of the Amendment is to extend qualified privilege to fair and accurate reports, published without malice


and in the public interest, of proceedings in foreign Parliaments. I propose, briefly, to put the case for the Amendment, because in spite of the earnest consideration I have given to the very considerable arguments directed against the words I still hold the view that this Amendment is a desirable one.
This paragraph was not put in the Schedule to protect newspapers. It is in the Bill to protect the right of the public to have information about what goes on in foreign Parliaments. The question to be decided is whether newspapers shall be precluded from reporting what takes place, or what is said in a foreign Parliament because it contains libellous matter—not necessarily, incidentally, libellous of people resident in this country, but libellous matter on anybody.
If we impose upon newspapers the liability to pay damages in respect of libel for reports they publish of what takes place in foreign Parliaments, we are to that extent curtailing the right of the British public to have information about what is being transacted in foreign Parliaments. For example, if the President of the United States were to go to the Senate tomorrow and say that in his opinion on certain matters a member of the British Cabinet was a liar, no British newspaper would be entitled to publish that fact without the risk of libel proceedings.

Mr. S. Silverman: Why?

Mr. Lever: Because the statement would be libellous.

Mr. Silverman: Would it?

Mr. Lever: My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has expressed the opinion sotto voce that it would not be libellous to say that a member of the British Cabinet was a liar.

Mr. Silverman: We say it every day.

Mr. Lever: That certainly does not preclude an argument as to whether the statement would be libellous. I would venture humbly to advise the House that such a statement would be libellous, and could only be published at the risk of an action for damages.
If Mr. Mossadeq, between tears, were defending his position in relation to the

Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, if he wished to justify the actions of the Persian Government and felt it necessary to criticise the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, and to say many severe things about them, true or false, the British public would not have the right to know the attitude of the Persian Government or what was being said in the Persian Parliament. If it came through on the tape, and a director of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company warned the entire Press that they would be sued for heavy damages—or if no such warning of liability was given—the Press could not publish the statement without incurring the risk of an action for libel in respect of it.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The tape is not protected.

Mr. Lever: No, it is not. Certain other considerations might apply in relation to the tape.

Mr. S. Silverman: Suppose, in one or other of the two cases we have had by way of illustration, the statement turned out to be wholly untrue, mischievous and damaging to the reputation of a person in the highest possible degree. Would the newspaper, in the view of my hon. Friend, be entitled to blazon it in headlines throughout the country, and the person defamed have no remedy of any kind? Is my hon. Friend really saying that that is desirable?

Mr. Lever: If my hon. Friend strips the rhetoric from his proposition, if he withdraws, "blazoning it in headlines" his question is whether fair and accurate reports of what took place in the Persian Parliament and the American Congress should be available to the British public. My answer, bluntly is, "Yes," even though it may cause some inconvenience and pain to the person affected.

Mr. R. T. Paget: There is one point about this which worries me. There are here two parts to the Schedule. In the first part reports are privileged, whether or not the newspaper publishes a reasonable letter at the request of the person defamed. In the second part it is only privileged subject to the newspaper publishing a reasonable letter from the person defamed. In the instance given to us would it not be reasonable to require the newspaper


to publish the reply of Anglo-Iranian Oil Company officials who were defamed? Is it reasonable here to give to Senator McCarthy and Mr. Vyshinsky a privilege which in the second part we deny to the London County Council?

Mr. Lever: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has put the matter most fairly, and I think there is an arguable case for having put this in the other part of the Schedule. But I think it is a case which must be rejected, because we are dealing with foreign Parliaments; and if newspapers knew that when they reported the proceedings of those Parliaments they would be obliged to put in letters on every occasion from anyone who claimed he was defamed before they could get protection, it would limit the protection in practice and there is something to be said against it.
I would have welcomed the intervention of my hon. and learned Friend at a stage in the progress of the Bill when we might have debated whether it ought to go in the first or the second part of the Schedule. Unhappily, he did not press this upon me at a stage when we might have given it consideration.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: It was pressed on the Report stage.

Mr. Lever: With respect, no. I have reason to be fairly accurate in my recollection. What was discussed on a previous occasion was whether or not these words should remain in the Bill. No one moved any Amendments to put this in another part of the Schedule.

Mr. S. Silverman: Surely my hon. Friend is a little unfair to the House. On the Report stage the House could deal only with what was proposed by the promoters of the Bill. If this ought to have been and would have been better in another part of the Schedule, it is not the fault of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) or myself. If it is not in the other part of the Schedule, my hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick (Mr. N. H. Lever) should have put it there. The fact is we are being asked to say now we should have added it to the Schedule, allowing people to be defamed in a foreign Parliament without there being any right of reply.

Mr. Lever: My hon. Friend must not mislead the House about this. The Committee and the House had facilities for doing this if anyone had thought it a useful thing to do. But that was not the proposition. It was simply whether or not we should keep these words in, and not whether we should remove them to any other part of the Schedule. Either in Committee or on Report there was an opportunity to decide into which part of the Schedule it should go, but nobody moved any such Amendment. I did not do so because I think it should be where it now is, and so do those who supported me. My hon. Friend, had he thought that it should be retained in the Bill, but in the other part of the Schedule, had ample facilities for having that point discussed. Unfortunately, nobody espoused that cause in an effort to get it effectively placed in the Bill.
Therefore, the House is in the position of deciding whether the law shall stand as it is now, whether reports of what is being said in foreign Parliaments are not to be privileged, and, if defamatory of anybody anywhere in the world, that person can come into this country and issue a writ for libel, or whether we are to have the British public properly informed on these matters.
I want to answer in advance the kind of argument which caused me some trouble on the last occasion, and which I have since considered as fairly and objectively as I can. It seems to me to put the case of the opponents of the Clause at its strongest. I am asked why we should give privilege to what Senator McCarthy may say in the Senate or what Mr. Vyshinsky may say in the Russian Parliament. The answer is that the British public ought to know what is being said by statesmen in these countries, even when they will reject the views expressed or even when they will not believe the charges being made. It is important that the British public should be able to assess the calibre of foreign legislatures and foreign statesmen and of the things being said, and they cannot do that if we stop the Press from publishing these things on pain of libel.
Newspapers get these reports, and it is true that a good many of them—the great majority—are not libellous of anybody, but, as long as the law remains as it is, it means that these reports have to be


scrutinised by lawyers, who must decide, often on inadequate material, whether the report is libellous of somebody and whether that person is likely to bring an action.
If we really want to encourage the public to be better informed about what goes on in foreign Parliaments, let them be given the privilege that is provided in this Clause. That was the unanimous view in another place—not of one side of the House, but of all sides, and I only put it before the House today because it was very carefully considered, and this is not a party matter. It is a question whether to take the liberal view, which is the view that it is an overwhelming benefit to have these matters reported in the public interest, or to take the illiberal view, which is to torture oneself in nightmare fashion about the worst possible misuse by the worst possible people when deciding to prevent the public having the overwhelming benefit of such reports.
I urge the House to reconsider the matter, and to agree with the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Hylton-Foster: I beg to second the Motion.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: This is an important Amendment, which was discussed at considerable length both in the Committee stage and on the Report stage. Though on all occasions on Friday there is a thin attendance in the House, I think that on the Friday when the Bill was considered on Report, there was not a bad attendance.
I hold the view, for what it is worth, that a Bill of this importance is quite inappropriate to be dealt with by the House of Commons on a Friday, when there is a thin attendance. It is a Bill of such importance, because it affects the freedom of the subject and freedom of speech, and those are matters which should receive the full consideration of a representative assembly. We do not have a fully adequate representative assembly on a Friday, and to that extent I agree with the observations of my hon. Friend.

2.45 p.m.

Mr. Robert Boothby: High quality.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I cannot dissent from what my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) said about the quality of the attendance on the Committee stage, and I also accept what the hon. Gentleman opposite says without any cavil at all.
My hon. Friend was also concerned about what happened in another place. I have the very greatest respect for the noble Lords who dealt with this matter, but perhaps, in view of what he has said, it is fair to say that the matter was dealt with, very properly, as a comparatively small matter. I think it is also fair to say that there were no reasons adduced other than the reasons which had already been canvassed in this House at an earlier stage. I make those obervations because my hon. Friend referred to the matter.
The matter to be decided by the House on this Amendment is not a legal matter. There are legal points and there is legal phraseology in the Clauses of the Bill, but the question really is a very simple straightforward question for commonsense decision, preferably by people other than lawyers. The question is whether a newspaper publication of a defamatory statement made in a foreign legislature is, in the circumstances to which my hon. Friend referred, to be privileged and free from damages for defamation. I should like to look at the Clauses of the Bill a little carefully. There must be certain conditions, and I want to be completely fair and put the whole case quite openly to all hon. Members, some of whom, perhaps, did not have the privilege of dealing with it in detail in Committee.
There must be no malice on the part of the newspaper proprietor, but that does not preclude deliberate malice on the part of a foreigner who makes defamatory statements. All that it implies is that there should be no malice on the part of the newspaper. Secondly, the matter must be of public concern and the publication of it must be for the public benefit.
Let us take the first phrase—"the matter must be of public concern." No neswpaper of consequence is going to publish anything with news interest that is not a matter of public concern. One can assume that. As for the phrase "the publication of which is for the public benefit," the whole basis of the


case for including this provision about foreign Parliaments is the attitude that it is for the public benefit that defamatory statements made by a foreigner in a foreign legislature should be made available in this country, even though they cause damage and defamation without remedy to an individual citizen in this country.
I must say that this seems to me to be an intolerable situation. We are not dealing here with cases concerning Dominion Parliaments or even this Parliament. We are dealing with foreign Parliaments, and, as I said on the Report stage, there are foreign Parliaments whose standard of conduct, whose traditions and whose sense of responsibility can be safely relied upon; but this provision here extends to foreign legislatures and those of any State or province of a State. Something of considerably less importance than the London County Council, if reported in an English newspaper, can be defamatory, and will leave the person defamed without remedy whatever.
A person can get up behind the Iron Curtain in one of the several Reichstags which they have and can make the most outrageous personal statements and attacks upon leading statesmen in this country. These statements can be published in the kind of newspaper which would revel in publishing that kind of material, and, nevertheless, there would be no remedy at all, not even the remedy of the newspaper being required in all decency to publish a denial from the statesman concerned. That really is impinging on the right of the individual to an extent which I suggest the House should not accept.
It is suggested that the public benefit should over-ride the honour of the individual—and, of course, I am assuming that there has been defamation and that damage has been done. There should be no remedy of any kind, it is suggested, because the public benefit should over-ride the rights of the individual. Where are we going? It is not suggested as a principle of the law of defamation that public benefit should over-ride the individual's right to his individual reputation and honour; that is not the case. That is not suggested as a matter of principle of the law of defamation.
It is merely suggested that it should apply in these two cases—where a defamation is made in a foreign legislature or a Dominion legislature, and secondly, if it is published in a newspaper. The provision does not extend to anything at all except newspapers. It does not extend to publication on the tape——

Mr. S. Silverman: Or in a book.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: And in a book? If the hon. Member for Cheetham (Mr. N. H. Lever) does not understand the provisions of his own Bill, he should consider them again.

Mr. Silverman: I interrupted my hon. and learned Friend to say that not merely would it not be protected on the tape, but it would not be protected if it were printed in a book.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: That is so. I am sorry; I misunderstood the intervention. I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham was extending his Bill a stage further in an interruption. I fully appreciate the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) makes.
Let us consider what is outside the scope. The proceedings of foreign courts are not to be protected; they are treated differently. Why are they not to be protected? The answer is—for reasons which are given in the Porter Committee Report: and I should like to bring to the attention of the House what those reasons are and invite the House to look at them a little carefully. They are:
Had not the practical difficulties proved insuperable, we should have desired to add to the list of reports entitled to qualified privilege, reports of proceedings in some foreign courts. But the legal systems of the different countries of the world vary considerably and drastic changes in the character of their judicial tribunals may occur with little previous warning.
I ask the House to bear in mind the application of those words in the Porter Committee's Report to foreign legislatures as well as foreign courts. The quotation continues:
Legal proceedings may be of a political character, and may take place in absentia. We have found it impossible to put forward any criterion of general application which could be adopted to limit and define such foreign courts as maintain a standard of justice and a method of procedure which would justify our


recommending that reports of their proceedings should be entitled to qualified privilege without any droit de reponse on the part of the person defamed.
All of it, almost word for word, is equally applicable to foreign legislatures. It says:
legal proceedings may be of a political character;
but the very justification for reporting the proceedings in a Legislature is that they are of a political character. The Report says, "May take place in absentia." Of course, that is so in a foreign legislature. All that is said in the Committee's Report about the different standards in different foreign countries is equally applicable to the different legislatures. Some are most honourable and responsible and some are as ramshackle as the courts which they have in those countries.
Foreign courts are excluded and similarly, I suggest, foreign legislatures should be excluded, too, and the reasoning in that part of the Porter Committee's Report should be applied equally strongly to foreign legislatures. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether I should be in order to make a comment on the next Amendment, which follows immediately after this.

Mr. Speaker: If it is connected with the subject matter of the first Amendment, I think that would be in order.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The Amendments proposed extend the provision not only to foreign legislatures but to any public inquiry made by the Government or the legislature of the foreign country. It is not merely a question of the reports of foreign legislatures but also of the reports of inquiries made under the aegis of foreign legislatures.
Contrast how the Bill deals with our own local Government. I suggest that this privilege is to be extended by the Amendment not only to reports of the legislature of the central government of any foreign country but also to the government of any province or state of a foreign country. If we come to bodies like the L.C.C., where do we find any privilege for reports of big and responsible bodies of this kind within our own country? They come within that part of the Schedule which obliges the newspaper to publish a correction or an explanation of the report.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheatham suggests that at some stage we should have put down an Amendment to include this in Part II. What we are considering here is its inclusion in Part I. All hon. Members will recognise that the proposal brought before the House is not that the publication should be privileged subject to a requirement that an explanation or correction is published in the newspaper; but a proposal that it should be free from any such explanation or correction altogether. In that respect it is a proposal that defamatory statements by foreign legislatures which are published in this country should be accorded a privilege which is not even accorded to our own local authorities and our own local organs of government. I am aghast at the suggestion that we should deal with the matter in this way.
This attitude is not some new innovation on the part of hon. Members who oppose the Amendment. It is an innovation in the law introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheatham. As far as I know, the newspapers of this country have got on extremely well without having any such provision covering defamatory statements made in foreign countries. I am not aware that the people of this country have suffered in their liberties or been hamstrung in their political development because we have not had published in this country's newspapers defamatory statements made in foreign lands.
3.0 p.m.
I ask the House to consider in this case primarily what I, personally, have throughout considered the most important factor to be borne in mind in approaching this Bill, and that is that we should protect the liberty of the subject in his honour; that if there is any intrusion upon it or any weakening of the defences available to it, then it should be done in such a way as to provide an adequate remedy; that there should be no incursions upon the liberty of the subject except so far as it is essential, and only then with the safeguards that common sense would indicate
The least of the safeguards that common sense would indicate when dealing with these foreign countries whose standards are different from ours and whose standards and sense of responsibility are different from ours, is


that if the newspaper is accorded the privilege of publishing that defamatory statement, it should at any rate be under an obligation to publish the correction and explanation of it, too.

Mr. Boothby: I intervene for only one minute to say that I have listened with great interest to this debate, because when I read this Amendment I was uneasy, and I wanted to hear whether there was any fresh argument which could be adduced in its favour. I must say that I have heard nothing today that in any way satisfies me.
I do not know what the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) suggests we should do. It does not seem to me that there is very much we can do. This Amendment does not seem justified on grounds of public interest. It is not vital to publish in this country a report of every Parliament, legitimate and phoney, however defamatory, and that the subject should have no redress seems to open real dangers
I have risen simply for the purpose of expressing, as a layman, my deep apprehension, and to suggest that if it is possible to get this provision out of the Bill without any great danger, it would be a very good thing.

Mr. Weitzman: I confess that this is not an easy matter. It is a difficult problem when one has to deal with two conflicting interests. In this case we have first of all the public interest which must require full and free publication of matters of public concern. Then there is the private interest, which certainly requires that a private person should be protected from the repetition of any injurious statements made under the cover of public concern. I recognise fully that in considering this matter we, as a House of Commons, must weigh up very carefully both those considerations.
I wish now to deal with one point put forward, that the privilege given with regard to publication in newspapers of reports of foreign legislatures is not given to the publication of reports of matters in the courts of foreign countries. It has been said that the standards of judicial courts vary. It may equally be said that the standards of legislatures vary. It has

also been said that judgments are made in absentia. Again, it may well be said that statements are made in legislatures in the absence of the person involved.
On the other hand, when dealing with courts of law one is dealing with matters which are primarily questions of private interest. There is no need for the public to know the position with regard to dealings in the courts of law in foreign countries; or at any rate not so great a need to know these matters from the point of view of the public interest.
There is the further point that, with the judgment of a foreign country the layman may very often be misled into thinking that what has been found as a fact or what is announced as a finding in a court of law is something which has been arrived at judicially, and it will be accepted as something which is true. Therefore, it seems to me that the publication of reports of matters in a court of law is on an entirely different footing from matters reported in legislatures. What we are really concerned with are principles of foreign law rather than the details of cases and the decisions thrashed out in a court of law.
My own view is that, although there is a great deal that may be said about this matter on both sides, when considering the reporting of proceedings in legislatures one is dealing with matters on an entirely different basis. A legislative body, a legislature, is sovereign in its own country, whether it acts in an arbitrary or an unreasonable manner. We have to deal with the legislature as representing that country. We have to deal with it in many ways. We have to conduct our foreign affairs, and to know what these other countries are thinking and doing.
For example, references have been made to McCarthyism, and references have been made in another place to what may be said by way of report on the Congress of the United States. Is it the feeling of this House that when there are reports of foreign legislatures a newspaper ought not to publish them, and that if it publishes any statements made in such a way it runs the risk of action being taken against it?

Mr. Boothby: Only if they are defamatory.

Mr. Weitzman: We are discussing the publication of such reports when they are defamatory. That is the very essence of this debate. I thought that it was needless to say that. I am putting forward in this House the plea that in a democratic country like England it is surely essential we should have the fullest possible publication of anything said in any foreign legislature.
We have to make up our minds as citizens of this country on what is happening in other countries. We should be given the right to have that material even if it is defamatory. One recognises that a private individual may suffer. We know that, but one has to weigh the question of public interest as against the question of private interest, and, in my submission, it would be a very bad thing for this House to say that we should not be able to get free, untrammelled, unhindered publication on a matter spoken in any foreign legislature.
I say free, untrammelled and unhindered but, in point of fact, the House will remember that it is not even unhindered because there are safeguards here. One must remember, for example, that there is proof of malice and one must not neglect the fact that on proof of malice on the part of a newspaper the plaintiff has the right to obtain damages. It does not rest there. There are two further points to be borne in mind. One must remember that there is no protection if the matter is not one of public concern or if the publication is not for the public benefit. They are not idle defences. It is open to the plaintiff to raise them, and if the jury find that the matter is not one of public interest or not of public concern, the plaintiff has the right to recover damages.

Mr. Paget: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman think of or imagine any case of a newspaper—and we are concerned here with newspapers—in which he thinks that defence can possibly apply?

Mr. Weitzman: I can certainly imagine cases in which an argument could be put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman with great force before a jury; and he would be the first one to put it forward, and I do not see why the jury should not accept the argument put forward by my hon. and learned Friend in such a case.
I conclude on this note. I recognise the difficulty and I recognise that there are arguments on both sides, but I suggest to the House that it would be a retrograde step not to accept this Amendment. There is nothing in the argument which says, "We have managed all right for many years and nothing has happened." All progress would stop if we accepted that sort of plea. We are here to consider what can be done to improve a state of affairs however long it may have been in existence; and in order to assist facilitating free discussion in this country, I suggest that this Amendment ought to be accepted.

Mr. Charles Doughty: I speak against this Amendment. It is, in my view, opening the door much too wide if we allow everything that is said in any part of the world—and by that I mean in foreign parts—to be reproduced in this country to the hurt and detriment of private individuals here.
I consider it our duty in this House to consider the rights of private individuals in this country. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) that there are arguments on both sides, and I fully appreciate that facts should be brought before the people, but I think that it would be wrong to deprive the private individual of the right to bring an action to protect his honour when he has been defamed merely because a small country has made an attack upon him, which probably would never be noticed in this country if it were not repeated by the very wide publication given to it in newspapers in this country.
I do not wish to delay the passage of the Bill, for I consider it to be, generally speaking, excellent, and the sooner it comes into law the better. I ask the House not to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Paget: In this argument we have been appealed to from opposite sides of the House in the name of high liberal principle. I am not impressed by the pleas. I believe that the talent of this nation has lain largely in its capacity to take a common sense view and not to be unduly worried by either principle or doctrine. I approach the matter purely from a practical point of view.
We are asked to change the law. I am of a very conservative way of mind. I do not approve of changing things unless I can find good reason for doing so. For a very long time we have had a state of affairs here which seems to have worked very well indeed. I should have thought that we are sufficiently informed as to what happens in foreign Parliaments, and those who wish for particular information are always in a position to get it.
I have had contacts with many libel actions in my time. I was for some years "devil" to Sir Valentine Holmes, who represented a very large number of newspapers, and I cannot recollect ever having encountered a libel action which arose from a report of a foreign legislature. If the newspapers were capable of exercising restraint which protected them effectively from publishing these defamatory statements, why should they not go on doing so?
The real danger is that if we grant a privilege which, in practice, is an absolute privilege—on the very arguments advanced, if something occurs in a foreign legislature it is in the public interest and to the public advantage to know what happened there, and thus it will cover the whole field and will be an absolute privilege—we allow things that happen in foreign legislatures to be used for quite different and propaganda purposes.
For instance, the proceedings of the Un-American Activities Committee are proceedings of a foreign legislature. That is a committee of foreigners. Wild charges of treason, without any foundation at all, are brought against public characters, not only American but also British. At elections and other times the greatest use could be made of such charges and it could be made in safety, whereas at present the law prevents that sort of misuse of proceedings in foreign Parliaments.
My hon. Friend is not in a position to say today that nobody suggested putting this into another part of the Schedule. I am quite happy to leave the law where it is and not put this in any Schedule at all. It is outrageous to say, on the one hand, that a man must be protected against what is said of him in the L.C.C. or any of the other great local government bodies of this country to the extent that the newspaper which prints the defamatory statement must at

least publish his reply, and, on the other hand, to say in respect of anything which any legislator may say in any little tin-pot Parliament in any little republic of the world, or in any senatorial committee, that that can be published and that the newspaper is under no obligation to publish the man's defence if he asks to defend his reputation—in other words, to give to Senator McCarthy and to Mr. Vyshinsky a privilege which is denied to the L.C.C. or to the Corporation of Edinburgh.
3.15 p.m.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby) said, "What can we do about this?" We can do the simplest thing in the world. We can say that we do not agree with their Lordships in this Amendment. That will not in any way imperil the Bill and we shall keep the law in this respect as it has always been and as it has always worked very nicely.

Mr. F. P. Bishop: I want to say a word in support of this Amendment. I do so without feeling any very passionate interest in the matter, because I do not think that the value of the Bill depends on the decision of this question, nor do I find in it any vast question of principle.
In considering this Amendment we have come to a marginal point in the debate, as between public interest and the rights of private individuals. That explains the difficulty in which the House finds itself and the disagreement there is on this point. We have long ago accepted the principle that things which are said in this House and in the British Parliament must be fully reported without any question of private interest intervening between the right of the public to know what is said here.
It is the fact that things are said in this House which gives the public the right to know those things, whether or not they may do injury to private individuals. That has long been accepted as a basic principle. We are already agreed upon a considerable extension of that principle, because we are applying it to reports of public proceedings in the legislatures of any part of Her Majesty's Dominions outside Great Britain. That is a wide extension. I think we have already accepted the fact that it is in the public interest


that our newspapers should, without risk of being exposed to proceedings for defamation, be able to give the public a free, fair and accurate report of what goes on in any of the Dominion Parliaments.
Now we come to what I call the marginal point, the question of whether that principle should be further extended so as to apply to the legislatures of foreign countries. I appreciate the force of what has been said, that foreign legislatures vary very much in their character, and that not all of them are of anything like the same standard as this House or as the legislature of most of the countries of the Commonwealth; but it seems to me that, on balance, to exclude the rights of the newspapers of this country to publish without fear of action for defamation what has been said in a debate in the Congress of the United States is going rather too far. The fact that it is said there is a fact which the public of this country should be entitled to know.

Mr. Boothby: If we pass this Amendment what protection is there against an evilly-disposed person in this country who, wishing to injure another person in this country, persuades a member of a tin-pot foreign legislature to make a defamatory statement against that person?

Mr. Bishop: Is not that going rather far? If such a thing could happen at all it could happen in this House. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) says that we are calling ourselves liars every day or something like that. I do not wish to misrepresent him. Such things are possible, but some credit must be given and some reliance must be placed upon the responsibility of newspapers to publish things which they believe to be of public importance and of interest to the people of this country.
I support the acceptance of the Amendment, on a balance of what I believe to be the advantages of it. I recognise that there is another point of view, but whichever view the House takes I do not think that this very important and vital Bill will be wrecked by the decision on the Amendment.

Mr. S. Silverman: I hope that no one will think it reflects upon the arguments which have been put if I say that it seems to me that the balance of argument falls overwhelmingly on one side. Let us

remember, first of all, that the House is being asked to change its mind. We are not being asked to consider this matter de novo. It is not a matter to which we have not addressed our minds before. We are being asked by another place to reconsider a decision we have already given. I have no complaint about that. We have a Second Chamber, and one of the most useful functions, and indeed the only useful function, it can perform is that of a revising Chamber. I have no complaint that the other place, in their consideration of this matter, should invite us to review a decision which we have already reached.
Though one in such circumstances is very willing to look again at a point, the onus is still on those who wish us to alter a decision that we reached last time. There ought to be some new argument or new way of putting an old argument to persuade us that a decision that we did not lightly reach last time was wrong and that we ought to change it now.
We have been told that this was not a party matter in another place. It was not a party matter in this House either. If it had been, the House would presumably have come to a different decision. There were as many Members on this side as there were Members on that side who voted in the majority on the last occasion. To do justice to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham (Mr. N. H. Lever), he said when he recommended this change to us that the Lords, in inviting us to change our minds, intended no more than to give us an opportunity of looking at the matter again. That is all right. It does not mean that the Lords had any very strong view themselves. Their discussion, if I remember rightly, did not take very long.
I do not want to say anything disrespectful about it, because I understand they wanted us to have another look and did not go beyond that. I cannot quote the debates of another place, but anyone looking at them would feel, I think, that the other place did not examine the matter quite so fully or so carefully as we did. In the absence of any new balance of argument, I think the House would be ill advised to change its mind.
I did not know that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) was conservatively


minded. I know that I am, and I always have been, especially in these matters. I had a rather left-handed compliment from my hon. and learned Friend earlier about my devotion to the common law. I am not so devoted as all that. If a lady makes mistakes, she must be corrected like anybody else. However, in matters of this kind I think that the onus of proving the desirability of a change lies upon those who want the change to be made. It has been put forward today as a fine balance of argument, and if that is as high as it can be put, then one ought not to insist that the majority of the others, who feel that the balance of argument is heavily the other way, ought to be called upon to change their minds.
If this House rejects the advice of another place on this matter, I do not believe that there will be heartburnings or bursting of blood vessels in the other place. I think they will accept our decision. My hon. Friend will get his Bill and we shall all congratulate him upon it. It will be better that way than to make a change which, at the best, is put forward as being of doubtful advantage and, at the worst, seems to be an intolerable invasion of the right to his reputation which is the right of every citizen of our country.

The Attorney-General: I do not think it is necessary to remind the House that this is a Private Member's Bill and that, therefore, the House is fully entitled to do exactly what it pleases about it. As far as I am concerned, I believe that everyone in the House today has the right to make up his own mind on the matter. At the same time, it is even more important than usual to remember that we have Second Chamber Government and that what happens in another place on a Private Member's Bill should be taken into consideration. However, after reading the account of what took place there, I think their Lordships would be the first to admit that the case on the other side was not developed in the way it has been today. We have had two speeches, one from each side of the House, which must have caused everyone seriously to think about the matter.
As the debate has been so complete, it would be a pity to leave out two additional considerations. The first is that

the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) referred to the Porter Report, but he did not make it quite clear—probably that was because he had it so clearly in his head and many of us have read it so often—that the committee, when taking one view with regard to the courts of other countries, went on to deal with the question of legislatures.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I do not want any misapprehension about this and I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for enabling me to remove any false impression. I was reading that passage precisely. I was drawing a distinction between the courts and legislatures and all my argument was intended to be directed to the point that the distinction they drew was not correct because what they said about the courts was equally applicable to the legislatures.

The Attorney-General: I thought it would be a pity if, in view of its lucid and persuasive terms, anyone in the future reading the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, might say it was vitiated in that way.
3.30 p.m.
There is another consideration that should, I think, be mentioned. Hon. Members may think that it can be set aside, but if it is the fact that there is a deterrent upon newspapers to publish matter of this kind, it would be an unfortunate thing if for any reason famous statements, such as those by Senator McCarthy, and that kind of thing were not published. Whatever view one takes of them, the fact that they have been published is a very material factor in subsequent discussions. The House may, however, come to the conclusion that that is a consideration that does not weigh sufficiently heavily.
Therefore, all that I would seek to do is to re-emphasise that everyone is entitled to make up his own mind on this. It is fairly clear that the preponderance of opinion is one way, and I have only one suggestion to make. If it were possible for the House to come to a unanimous conclusion upon this without having the necessity for a Division, even if that resulted in our disagreeing with the Lords Amendments, I feel quite certain that no difficulty would be provoked and I


believe that the matter could be dealt with.
I understand that in those circumstances certain formalities have to be complied with. The time is short and co-operation is required to produce some body by co-operation between Members on both sides. I am quite sure that I should have the assistance of my hon. Friends on this side as well as of hon. Members opposite in doing anything that was necessary for that purpose. Therefore, I should like to suggest for the consideration of the hon. Member for Cheetham (Mr. N. H. Lever) that his work in connection with the Bill might very well be crowned by a unanimous conclusion.
Perhaps it would not be considered improper or out of order if I were to conclude by saying that the Bill is remarkable in one or two ways. It is remarkable as a Private Member's Bill in that we have succeeded in coming, at any rate, within a very short distance of passing into law a Measure which is generally regarded as being of quite substantial importance. I think it is also true that it has had very careful consideration. The mere fact of our discussion today, in which we find ourselves reluctantly compelled to differ from an assembly which contains very eminent personages with great experience of this branch of the law, shows in itself the care with which the whole matter has been considered.
Finally, it shows the value of the Private Member's Bill procedure and the very welcome fact that, in spite of our differences on many other matters, in spite of the very small difference in numbers between the two main parties, we are able to co-operate, amicably discuss and finally knock into shape a Measure of this kind.

Question put, and negatived.

Lords Amendment: In line 24, at end, insert:
or of any foreign country or province or state of a foreign country.

Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment"—[Mr. N. H. Lever]—put, and negatived.

Remaining Lords Amendment agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill: The Attorney-General, Mr. N. H. Lever, Mr. Paget, Mr. S. Silverman and Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas; Three be the quorum.—[Mr. N. H. Lever.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Orders of the Day — COCKFIGHTING BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1.—(POSSESSION OF DOMESTIC FOWL AND APPLIANCES FOR USE IN FIGHTING RENDERED UNLAWFUL.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 7, leave out subsection (3).

3.35 p.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Sir S. Marshall.]

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Before the House agrees with this Amendment, I think the House is entitled to one or two words of explanation by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Sir S. Marshall). It so happens, Mr. Speaker, that, apart from a few very brief comments by the hon. Member on the occasion of Third Reading, this Bill has not been the subject of any discussion whatever in the House. I suggest that as time does permit, the hon. Member to give the House the courtesy of a few words in explanation of this Amendment and why he is asking the House to agree.

Sir Sidney Marshall: The hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), like other hon. Members, has had ample opportunity to discuss the Clauses of the Bill as they were originally presented and before they went to the other House. It was before this House and in due course went to the other place. I, as father of the Bill, can offer no objection to the Lords Amendments.
The Bill has certainly lost some of its feathers in its progress through the House of Lords and almost lost its spurs, which are practically the only thing left. I very much regret that to a large extent we were not able to secure sufficient support in the House of Lords for the Bill as 71 originally went to them. But, it having come back to us, it is obvious that unless we agree to the Amendments which the other House has made, I shall probably get nowhere at all. I am quite content, therefore, to accept the Bill as it has come from another place.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: I ask the House to agree with the Lords in this Amendment. It does improve the Bill, which seeks to fill a gap in our present law against cockfighting. We have had 2,000 years of cockfighting. The Romans introduced it and, about 100 years ago, we abolished it, but not quite so well as if we were doing so today—perhaps our predecessors were not so careful—and there is this gap.
This Amendment does improve the law. I speak with a little constituency knowledge of this, as the most famous cockfight in history took place there in 1830. It was known as the seven-a-side—different from the seven-a-side we know. There were seven cocks on one side and seven on the other, Joseph Gilliver against the Earl of Derby. There was 5,000 guineas for the match, 1,000 guineas for each cock and, I am glad to say, the home side won. The Earl of Derby was defeated. I hope that the present Earl will not take that comment personally.
It was a cruel sport. A hundred years ago we tried to stamp it out. We left a little gap, which is now being filled by this Bill, especially by this Lords Amendment. I should like to support the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Sir S. Marshall).

Sir Herbert Williams: I should like to have an assurance that we shall have no cockfighting taking place in Committee Room 14.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 12, at end, insert:
(4) In the application of this section to Scotland, for the proviso to subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following proviso:—
Provided that such an order shall not take effect until the expiration of the period of

five days within which an application for a stated case may be made by virtue of section sixty of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1908, and, if such an application is made within that period, the order shall not take effect unless and until the appeal is dismissed or abandoned.

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Sir S. Marshall.]

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I rise to ask for an explanation from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Sir S. Marshall). He said in connection with the previous Amendment that the House had had ample opportunity of discussing the Bill. May I remind him that we allowed this Bill to go through on what is known as "the nod," and that it is a little unfair that he should, in a way, abuse the concession that was granted to him by hon. Members in the earlier stages by using it as an excuse for not saying anything about the Amendments to which he is now asking the House to agree.

Sir S. Marshall: The hon. and gallant Member is now asking for an explanation of a purely statutory alteration made in order that the Bill should apply to Scotland. I think that the Amendment itself is almost self-explanatory, because there is no reason whatever to require any explanation other than is given in the Amendment. I should have thought that the hon. and gallant Member himself should have been sufficiently intelligent to appreciate exactly why this Amendment is being made and why I agree with it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — FISH, FRUIT AND VEGETABLES (DISTRIBUTION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Studholme.]

3.43 p.m.

Miss Elaine Burton: I make no apology for raising today in this House, for I think the fourth or fifth time, the question of the distribution of fish, fruit and vegetables and although I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary would not say it in his remarks tonight, I should like to say to him, if


he was thinking that when I raised this matter several times with the Government of which I was a supporter I did not get any satisfaction, I agree with him entirely. Being ever hopeful, I hope for something better on this, the fifth time.
This matter affects a great many people—growers and producers, wholesalers, retailers and consumers, and I think that the Parliamentary Secretary would agree that each and every one of those sections is as anxious for as good a system of distribution of these commodities as possible.
During the last 12 months I consider that we have had more examples than ever of the faulty distribution of fish, fruit and vegetables. It is not my job as a back bencher to advance detailed suggestions as to what should be done. I believe that is the province of a Minister, and this afternoon——

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: It is very necessary, with this Government, that back benchers should do so.

Miss Burton: Well, I shall do my best. I believe that I can do the job best today if I deal with it from the commonsense angle and not from the theoretical angle, in spite of the interruption of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton).
In the past, when this matter has been raised, the answers received can be summed up under two heads and the Parliamentary Secretary himself is, I think, guilty of using both answers at one time or another. The first is that any inquiry into such distribution would mean a very long time beforehand for the necessary evidence to be obtained. The second answer is that it is not necessary to have any such inquiry, because all the evidence has already been obtained. That is being perfectly fair, and I would suggest that those answers cancel out each other.
If the first one is true—and I think most would agree that it is—and it would take a very long time to get the evidence for such an inquiry, I suggest to the Government that it is high time we started. The purpose of my raising this matter now is to ask the Government to make an immediate inquiry into the

distribution of fish, fruit and vegetables. Alternatively, if the answer is that no such inquiry is necessary, because the evidence has been obtained—and I have heard that answer for about the past five years—I suggest that that evidence be published. Let the public see what are the difficulties and make suggestions as to what should be done.
I have wondered why it is that every Government of whatever political complexion is so very reluctant to deal with the distributors of these commodities. Why is there this tenderness towards these distributors? Certainly, I grant it would mean upsetting a great many people. But the growers and the producers tell us when this matter is raised that they cannot make a fair profit. The retailers advance as a reason for their very high prices that they have to make a charge to cover the cost of wastage which is unavoidable under this system.
The housewives know they have to pay for it every time, and I wish to stress that point. When there is a scarcity of any of these goods, the housewife pays with high prices. When there is a glut, that glut is not passed on to the housewife in the form of low prices. Most hon. Members would agree that there is not the slightest doubt that the one person who pays every time is the housewife.
The first point I wish to raise—and it is only the second time I have raised it in this House—is the very trying one of the rise in prices at the week-end. I have no hesitation at all in saying that this is a complete racket directed at people whose wages are paid on a Friday. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he does his own shopping, or if not, that he ask his wife, to compare the prices of fresh fruit and vegetables on a Friday and Saturday with the prices charged on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.
When this matter was raised in my own constituency, in Coventry, probably about 15 months ago, it had some effect for about a month. In the outlying districts where the housewives are supplied from carts which take round fruit and vegetables, the owners exhibited placards saying, "No price rise this weekend." We killed it in Coventry for about a month, but I regret to say that it is killed no longer.
I wish to be fair. I do not necessarily think it is a matter for the Government, but I should like the Government to take the lead in condemning it. I ask local organisations in every town or city to have a look at the matter for themselves. I believe that if housewives would notice which were the shops which put up the prices at week-ends, and would boycott those shops, we might get somewhere.
I recall to the Parliamentary Secretary—I do not know whether he has heard this story, but it is perfectly true—that when we had a very large meeting in Coventry on this matter, the best performance of the whole night was when a greengrocer who came on the platform, and who was very angry with me, said, "Of course prices do not go up at the week-ends, they go down on a Monday." Therefore, I leave it to the Parliamentary Secretary, and I hope that he will be able to condemn a practice which is a deliberate fleecing of the consumer.
Now, I want to spend some time on the subject of fish, and I know that it may not be a very happy one for the Parliamentary Secretary, because he had a rather unfortunate time last year when the matter of fish prices came up in this House. I hope I am not doing him an injustice if I say that it seemed to be the belief on the Government benches that it was not unreasonable that prices should go up when there was a considerable demand. We on this side of the House think it is unreasonable if there is, to match that demand, a considerable catch at the same time.
The point that I want to make first is this. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary realises that the housewives are tired of high prices, varying prices and poor quality. What I think is the most annoying point of all is that these high prices are not always due to scarcity, but are due to a deliberate operation of taking advantage of the public, and I am going to give the Parliamentary Secretary some examples to prove it.
The Transport and General Workers' Union has proposed that there should be a reasonable minimum price fixed at the ports in order to give the trawler owners and the fishermen a fair profit, and that a reasonable maximum price should be fixed at the shops in order to give the retailer and consumer a fair deal. In

Grimsby and Hull, which I should say are two of our main fishing ports—and I do not know if the Parliamentary Secretary is in possession of these figures—in May, 1952, at these two ports, 970,000 stones of fish were unsold and, in June, 1952, 530,000 stones were unsold. I should like to say straight away that this fish was not unsold because it was of poor quality. At this time the minimum port prices were 40s. per 10 stones for cod and 42s. per 10 stones for haddock, and so we can say that obviously, in these two months, at. Grimsby and Hull, the fish was not worth 4d. per lb. at the port. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to tell me why.
I want also to ask him whether he thinks that the consumers benefited by low prices. Surely, if the fish was not worth 4d. per lb. at the port, it must have been because the housewife was getting it for less than that. But that is not true; she was paying more than four times as much in the shops. If too much fish was being landed, then why did prices not fall? In fact, they did not fall.
At some ports, trawler owners have a minimum price agreed to among themselves, and I believe this is a bad system. Whether they fix low prices or high prices, I do not think the prices should be fixed by the trawler owners themselves. We find in this fishing industry today—and I do not think that the public realise this—that the trawler owners buy landings from themselves at prices fixed by themselves. Frequently, they then send these supplies to freezing plants, and hold them there until landings are scarce, and then release the fish when prices are high. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary has noticed all these points, because we should like answers to them.
That is why we want a maximum price at the shops to safeguard the consumer. So very often, in any chain of distribution, we find people selling to themselves at various stages, and these trawler owners at our big ports are shareholders in the fishmeal factories, as are the merchants as well. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has ever been to Grimsby, but I have, and I have seen the trawlers there bringing in the fish. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary would agree with me that many of these trawler owners take the fish right through from the sea to the shops. That


is all right, but they sell to themselves and reap a profit at every stage of those transactions. That is why the customers in the shop have to pay a great deal more than they ought.
The average difference between the port price and the shop price is £7 per cwt. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to tell me why. If he is thinking of saying that it is because of transport, I would point out to him that the average price of transport is a ½ a lb. It takes a lot of halfpennies to make £7. I want to know, and the consumers want to know, why perfectly good fish which is wanted by the housewife should be left at the port unsold.
Frequently in this House we ask a question and then provide the answer, and I should like to provide an answer or two for the Parliamentary Secretary. First of all, at many of these fishing ports the merchants get together and refuse to handle the catch. I wonder whether it has been brought to the notice of the Ministry of Food that fishmongers up and down the country state that trawler companies are responsible for keeping prices up. Rather than send large catches to the market and thus bring down prices, they send them to be turned into fish manure, because they themselves have interests in the fish manure factories.
One firm suggestion which I make is this: I think that the number of port wholesalers should be reduced to a reasonable figure. In Grimsby and Hull, close on a thousand of these people operate. Today, in Coventry skilled workers are being declared redundant, and I ask the Ministry of Food if there is any reason why surplus wholesalers should not also be declared redundant. In the wholesale distribution of fish, fruit and vegetables, I believe that if we could get rid of a lot of surplus wholesalers and make them redundant, our prices would fall considerably.
In asking for this inquiry, I want to stress once more that there should be a reasonable minimum price at the ports to give the trawler owners and fishermen a fair profit, and a reasonable maximum price fixed at the shops to give the customer and the retailer a fair price; and that the margin between those two prices should cover the whole of the middle men in this transaction. If the

Parliamentary Secretary is not able to accept that suggestion, I hope he will give us some reasons why he cannot do so and will provide an alternative. I add a very strong rider to the effect that the number of port wholesalers has a very strong effect on the instability of prices. I recognise that if we have a minimum quality and a minimum price, there must be a scheme which will enforce that minimum quality; and that would have to be investigated.
Thirdly, dealing with fruit and vegetables, I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary would disagree that in the distribution of fruit and vegetables we have distribution chaos and economics run mad. I expect the House will remember that in August we had a potato shortage. In this matter, as in all others, there was one certain loser—the housewife; she loses right through these transactions. Last July some of the leading potato growers said that the selfishness of some of them, in trying to sell their crops and get the top price before price control was introduced on 1st August, was responsible for this potato shortage. Indeed, a spokesman of the Retail Fruit Trade Federation said that——

It being Four o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Studholme.]

Miss Burton: A spokesman of the Retail Fruit Trade Federation said that it was the greed of certain growers in murdering their potato crop in July which led to the shortage in August, because the potatoes were not fully grown and the public suffered. So in the case of potatoes we had the growers being blamed.
I now come to plums. I think everybody in the House will remember the glut of plums this year. It was rather unfortunate that earlier this week the Minister of Agriculture had to tell us that one-third of the plum crop was unsold this year. Although we had this heavy plum crop, it did not pay the growers to pick the plums and send them to market. I remember that the Parliamentary Secretary was asked in the House whether this fruit could be pulped


for future jam making. He knows, as we all know, that the pulp lasts for three or four years, but the answer we got was that the Government could not undertake this pulping. During the war years we succeeded in absorbing all the crops of fruit. We now have one-third of the plum crop unsold, and we are told that we are in a bad economic position. To those of us who are not economists this just does not make sense, and I do not imagine that it makes sense to the Parliamentary Secretary either.
I come now to cherries. Many growers of cherries wrote to me from different parts of the country in great indignation. They were blaming the retailers, and they wanted to know why it was that retailers should sell cherries at the fantastic price of 1s. 6d. a lb. when these same retailers had bought the cherries for 3d. a lb. from them. The writer of one postcard which I got, a very irate postcard, thought the greengrocer should be shot for charging that price.
I now deal with bananas. On Thursday, 2nd October, bananas from Jamaica reached the Royal Albert Docks, and instead of being green they were ready for eating. Now, I want to be fair about this matter, and I should like to tell the Parliamentary Secretary that I have not gone into it in detail. He may have a perfectly good reason to give me for this, but I have not seen the reason published.
The regulations are that bananas must be green when they reach this country so that they ripen by the time they reach the shops. Already this year we have had more than 80 tons condemned as unfit for eating. At the time these bananas reached the Royal Albert Docks, suggestions were made by the dockers and by organisations that the bananas should be moved speedily, either to nearby hospitals or to schools for children. But no; the distribution system was quite incapable of dealing with them, and the bananas went for pig feed. Whether there is a reason for it or not, the dockers, the organisations and the public blame the system.
My last point concerns eggs—and it is not "black market" eggs. It averages one week for an egg to leave a Danish hen and reach a British shop, and I ask

the Parliamentary Secretary why, if it only takes one week to cover all that distance, it should take a fortnight longer for a good many eggs to leave a British hen and reach the British shop which is nearby. I hope he will be able to answer that.
I contend that the British housewife has made her case over this matter. Whether it is fish, fruit or vegetables, she loses every time. It is the wish, I think, of hon. Members on both sides of the House—I am not blaming only this Government; I blamed my own Government in the past—that this matter of distribution shall be looked into so that the chain of distribution is as short as possible, and so that the housewife is offered goods at a fair price and the retailers and producers receive a fair reward for their labours. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not have to emulate Mr. Vyshinsky, but will give us an answer this time.

4.5 p.m.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: The hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) has, I think, built up quite a reputation for herself in this House by proclaiming the indignation of the housewife for any injustice which she considers has been done to her by producers, wholesalers or retailers. Certainly, today the hon. Lady has embodied in her speech a great expression of indignation on many fronts.
I shall not try to follow all of them, but I should like to say, first, one or two words about wholesalers in general, whether in respect of fish, fruit and vegetables or any other commodity. I do not believe that the wholesaler simply sprang up for the fun of it. I believe that he sprang up as the result of a need realised by retailers, consumers and producers, and I think one can say that the wholesalers come in for abuse from opposite ends of that chain, according to whether there is a surplus or a scarcity of supply.
If there is a scarcity, then, obviously, it is easier for the producer to sell direct, and the fact that the wholesaler exists automatically causes a good deal of indignation from the consumer. On the other hand, if there is a surplus of supply of various commodities, the wholesaler may seem to push up the price unnecessarily to the consumer; but we cannot


deal with any of these problems without considering both the point of view of the producer and that of the consumer.
I think that the producer himself would be the first to say that the consumer's interest must be first in his mind because what he is producing can only bring him in some return if it satisfies the consumer. We cannot, however, lay down one particular dogma about the evil or the good of either the wholesaler or the retailer without having regard to the variations which take place in the particular trades to which the hon. Lady has referred today.
I think that all of us who have tried to investigate matters concerning both the fish market and the fruit and vegetable market realise that they are immensely complicated, and that one cannot generalise even between all the soft fruits and all the other produce. Each has its own particular profits, and in each case the producer, the retailer and the consumer all have conflicting interests.
On the subject of fish, I do not pretend to be an expert, but I have had something to do with trying to promote the white fish industry in other parts of the world and in this country. In this particular industry, I have seen fish arriving at Hull in the morning, and one thing which has embedded itself in my mind is that the number of days at sea and the size of the catch each day are both factors which weigh enormously in deciding the eventual price to be charged for the fish. To say that there is a landing of a certain tonnage pays no regard at all to the cost of getting that tonnage through the port.
This, again, is an essentially technical problem, and I do not believe that we in this House are fully qualified to go into all the pros and cons of it. It raises a much greater issue, which I do not think I should be in order to discuss today, as to whether we in this House have the knowledge to deal with all these vast industrial problems. The only hon. Member who has produced any constructive thought on that matter is my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis), who suggested that we should have another House of Parliament altogether to deal with these matters.
The hon. Lady mentioned plums. It is true that an enormous quantity of plums are never picked. You, Mr. Speaker, will know, from the part of the world you represent in this House, the tragedy that has happened in that area very close to your constituency in the Vale of Evesham where, in past years, vast quantities of plums have been left to rot on the trees. So it is in my constituency in the Isle of Ely, and the same thing applies in North Cambridgeshire. When we have a glut it always happens that a certain amount of fruit is never picked, let alone marketed.
Rather than altering the wholesaler-retailer-producer set-up, the answer lies in the fruit-growing industry itself encouraging its members not to grow fruit which ought never to have been marketed because it is so bad. If we can encourage growers to root out their old trees and put their land down to growing crops which are necessary for the country we may get somewhere.
I believe that the real answer to all the problems raised by the hon. Lady lies fundamentally in the hands of the housewives. The vast majority of people buy their fruit absolutely blindly. There is a kind of price snobbery in buying vegetables and fruit. Just because something is priced as slightly more expensive than something else some people who can afford it will buy it without considering whether it is really a better buy. Hon. Members may have heard about the experiment in which two identical lettuces were placed in a greengrocer's shop window and one was priced 6d. more than the other. The vast majority of the housewives who came along bought the more expensive one merely because they thought it should be better as it was priced higher.
The answer to all these problems is that shoppers should be far more discriminating than they are. War-time is always a bad time for discrimination. In time of war when there is real scarcity of many things which are greatly desired, people automatically buy whatever is offered after they have waited two hours in a queue. We are now gradually moving into a situation where there is an opportunity for proper selection and for proper judgment as to whether quality is good enough or not. The answer to most of the hon. Lady's problems lies in


encouraging shoppers, for horticultural produce or anything else, to use their own judgment as to whether or not they are getting value for money.
This country is crying out for value for money in Government expenditure. Let everyone who goes into the shops adopt the same attitude. Human nature being what it is, if the eventual consumer gives someone an opportunity to make money out of him as the result of his complete inability or unwillingness to judge for himself, advantage will be taken of that opportunity every time it is offered. Although no system is perfect and no one group of individuals is always perfect, there is a great deal of room for improvement in discrimination in this matter.
The hon. Lady has raised many valuable points and I do not want to delay the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary. However, I hope that he will not be rushed into enforcing on the whole of the horticultural industry an inquiry which will disorganise it and will result in the suffering of the eventual consumer. I believe that my hon. Friend well knows that all the problems raised this afternoon are highly technical and require most careful technical consideration before conclusions are arrived at. I beg him not to rush into any broad inquiry which will undermine the confidence of the trade and, by so doing, also undermine the whole service which the industry renders to the eventual consumer.

4.14 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: I am sure that there is no danger whatever of the Parliamentary Secretary rushing into anything. Many of the fears expressed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) about what he might do seem to be quite unfounded and to have as little relevance to the matter we are now discussing as many of his other remarks. He said that the situation is extremely difficult and complicated. He had no suggestion to make except that the housewives should exercise a little more discrimination and not pay snob prices for the goods which they see in the shops.
I should imagine that the Parliamentary Secretary knows Brixton fairly well, and I think he would agree that although

price snobbery may exist in the Isle of Ely it certainly does not exist in Brixton, either on ordinary week days or at weekends. The price snobbery to which the hon. and gallant Member refers may apply to some parts of the country, but not to the kind of areas which are known to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food and myself.
We are anxious to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say. I am perhaps even more anxious than hon. Members who support him in this House, but to prevent him from making any fatal mistake I would remind him of what his Leader, the Prime Minister, said in the manifesto of the Conservative and Unionist Party issued in connection with the General Election of 1951. I will quote a sentence from that manifesto and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will fit himself into the context and say something on the subject, which is very relevant to the point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South.
This manifesto bears the signature of the Prime Minister and is, therefore, of greater importance than the usual printed matter circulated by the Conservative Central Office. It says:
Farmers and merchants should work together to improve distribution in the interests of the public.
I should like to know—as, I am sure, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South would—what the Government have done since October, 1951, to encourage farmers and merchants to work together to improve distribution in the interests of the public. If something, however small, were done along those lines it would help to narrow what to the ordinary person seems to be an excessive difference between what the primary producer receives and what the unfortunate housewives—even more unfortunate after 12 months of Tory rule than they were before—have to pay.
I put that specific question to the Parliamentary Secretary, because there are housewives in Brixton who ask me what the Government are doing about it, and I am unable to tell them. Some of them are Conservatives—though their numbers are dwindling as time goes on—but all the housewives would like to know what


the Government are doing and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us some information on the subject.

4.18 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): The hon. Lady has raised this matter in Adjournment debates on four occasions. Whatever we may think of the criticisms she has made on those occasions, we can congratulate her on her vigour and persistence in directing public attention to what is admittedly an important matter.
I propose to deal with her points and arguments with the seriousness they deserve, because we do want to satisfy ourselves that the distribution chain is neither longer nor more expensive than it need be and that no unnecessarily high margin exists between what is paid to the grower and what is paid by the consumer.
In a short and lively examination of the problem like this, however, we are in great danger of seeming to suggest that distribution is relatively unimportant and inexpensive. In comparing the price paid to the grower and that paid by the consumer we are apt to forget—and lead others to forget—the immense cost of the distributive process and the very considerable difficulties that are involved in it.
On the subject of fish, the hon. Lady referred to the need for economy and put forward two alternatives. She spoke of the proposals of the Transport and General Workers' Union, which were, in effect, price control proposals, not necessarily of the old kind but involving price control to a limited extent. Without going into details let me say that the White Fish Authority, the body charged by this House with responsibility in the field of distribution, is at present undertaking an investigation into distributive costs. We must regard it as a necessary and important step to examine thoroughly and scientifically the costs incurred before passing judgment on the method, character, or expense of the distributive process.
I was proposing to say something in general about price control being wholly inappropriate as applied to fish, and leading, in our experience, to loss of incentive and quality and to conditions adverse

to the consumer. But the essence of my reply to the hon. Lady is that inquiry into distributive costs is proceeding. When the fruits of that inquiry are available will be the time to consider what faults have been found, what steps should be taken, and what unnecessary distributive links or costs exist or are incurred.
The hon. Lady then passed to her old friends fruit and vegetables. Indeed, she managed to include eggs in the category, in order to get something off her chest that she might otherwise have raised on some other occasion. We must get clear what we believe the nature of the distributive costs problem to be. The hon. Lady has often spoken as though there were profiteering. She did not do so today, but she has spoken as if somewhere the grower, the wholesaler or the retailer is wickedly profiteering. I think she would agree that whatever suspicions she may have there is no evidence of that. One would hardly stand up in this House and speak of excessive incomes being enjoyed by those in the horticultural industry—nor by wholesalers—who sell, she knows, on a commission basis—nor by the retailers. There is no general evidence, in so far as there can be such, of profiteering.
Our difficulty—the hon. Lady has referred to this on other occasions—in examining this chain of distribution to compare like with like and to be certain that the commodity whose price on sale by the grower is being considered is the same commodity, of the same quality, as it passes down the chain and suffers price increases on the way. I expected that the hon. Lady would refer to the specific inquiry made by my predecessor into this matter, the fruits of which have not been published because it was thought that the 47 transactions which were studied afforded too poor and insufficient a statistical basis for drawing inferences.
I have been examining the report and find that in the particular transactions followed through, if 100 be taken as the grower's price, in the case of green peas, Kent grown, the retail price is 158, in that of green peas, Worcester grown, 174, and in that of lettuce, 188. I mention these figures in order to reduce to its proper perspective the size of this distributive margin, and bearing in mind the figure of 400 to 700 per cent. which the hon. Lady has used in the past.
Now let us look at the problem at the grower's end. This is important not only in relation to competition with imports, but throughout the whole distributive process. It is welcome news that more and more importance is being attached to it by the growers. There should be good grading, bulking, co-operative marketing and market intelligence available to growers. Let us remember that there are between 70,000 and 90,000 growers, about half of them with between five and 10 acres and that all that produce has to find its way to market. It is desirable that growers should have as an objective such a standard of selection and packaging, such a system of recognisable marks, that much of the journeying through markets which now takes place is avoided and business conducted instead by telephone.
There is no time to refer to the markets and their means of transport and siting. At the retail level there is a problem. The hon. Lady referred, perhaps lightly, to the elements that go into the retailer's margin, the elements of perishability, variable consumer choice, admixture of earth with products, transport, wages and the like. She referred to the tendency not to follow the market, but to adopt a retail price that does not vary up and down with the market price, not to buy large quantities and sell cheap. To the extent to which that tendency exists—and it cannot be denied that in some quarters it does exist—it may be an element of human nature and if so no horticultural commission, nothing the Government can do will alter it. I was

glad that in an earlier treatment of this subject the hon. Lady referred to the need to draw public attention to such a problem where it may exist.
I am hurrying because time is short, perhaps because of the help given by the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton). The bananas which were referred to were bad when they arrived. It was decided to place them in the only place reasonable in the circumstances. They were not fit for youthful stomachs, so no steps were taken to distribute them to the children in the vicinity of the dockyard.
The hon. Lady also referred to plums, and my hon. and gallant Friend said what can reasonably be said on that subject. It does not follow that, because nature is abundant, human appetite for plums will be proportionately greater, whatever may be the price and whatever may be the distribution. There is not necessarily a relationship between the bounty of nature and human appetite for it.
Time prevents me from tracing the course of the egg via the packing station, but that no doubt can be dealt with at another time.

The Question having been proposed at Four o'Clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour. Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Four o'Clock.